Stress and Motivation in Public Sector Employees: A Guide for Institution Managers

Public sector jobs offer security but not freedom from stress. Read about stress sources, motivation loss and steps managers can take in public institutions.

In Turkey, working in the public sector has long been seen as synonymous with a "secure job". A regular salary, permanent tenure and pension rights make the public sector appealing to many people. But being a public sector employee does not mean being outside the reach of stress and burnout. Face-to-face contact with citizens, angry applicants, a rigid hierarchy, changing legislation, the burden of digitalised services, eroding purchasing power and, at times, the feeling that one's effort goes unseen create a serious psychological load in public institutions too. One of the most common consequences of this load is that a person quietly loses their commitment and motivation. In this article, for public institution managers, municipalities, state economic enterprises, and human resources and occupational health and safety (OHS) units, I look at the sources of stress in the public sector, the factors that weaken motivation and the steps that can be taken at institutional level.

Why Do Public Sector Employees Experience Stress?

The sources of stress in the public sector are partly different from those in the private sector. Although job security is higher, the content of the work, the organisational structure and the relationship with citizens create different kinds of pressure. Common sources include:

• Intense contact with citizens: Employees in municipalities, tax offices, social security units, land registry and civil registry offices, courthouses and hospitals meet, throughout the day, people who are often troubled, tense or angry.
• The role of delivering bad news: Rejecting an application, serving a penalty, explaining that a right does not exist, or halting a transaction because of missing documents.
• A rigid hierarchy and low autonomy: Decisions being made at higher levels and the employee having limited say over their own work.
• Changes in legislation and practice: Having to adapt to frequently changing regulations and to explain them to citizens.
• Imbalanced workload: Work piling up in some units or with some individuals while capacity sits idle in others.
• The burden of digitalisation: New responsibilities brought by electronic systems, and facing citizens' anger when systems fail.
• Uncertainty over posting and transfers: Working far from family, the expected transfer not coming through, or anxiety about being assigned somewhere unwanted.
• Economic pressure: The purchasing power of the salary shrinking against the cost of living.
• Perceptions of fairness and merit: The belief that promotions and appointments are not made fairly.

European data show that these risks are widespread in the public sector too. In the OSH Pulse survey of more than 27,000 employees in Europe, 46% of employees reported severe time pressure or work overload, 26% poor communication or cooperation within the organisation, 18% a lack of autonomy and 16% violence or verbal abuse from customers or patients (EU-OSHA, 2022). In the ESENER 2024 survey of workplaces, too, 56% of workplaces in the EU cited "dealing with difficult customers, patients or pupils" as a risk factor (EU-OSHA, 2025).

How Does Motivation Loss Appear in the Public Sector?

Motivation loss in public institutions often proceeds quietly. Because job security is high, the employee does not leave the job; but they can withdraw mentally and emotionally. This can show up in the following ways:

• Doing only the bare minimum, avoiding taking initiative
• A "not my job" attitude and passing the work on to other units
• A mechanical, distant or impatient approach to citizens
• Resistance to innovation and change
• Frequent sick leave, arriving late, waiting for the end of the working day
• Thoughts such as "whatever I do, nothing changes" and "no one notices anyway"

This picture resembles the withdrawal that has been called "quiet quitting" in the private sector in recent years. I covered the subject in detail in the article on quiet quitting. In the public sector, this withdrawal can become even more entrenched through the contradiction created by security: "I have to stay, but I don't want to give."

The general picture in Turkey is also notable in this respect. According to Gallup's 2026 report, the proportion of employees in Turkey who are genuinely engaged with their work is only 8%, while the proportion who are actively disengaged is 24%; the proportion who say they experience intense daily stress reaches 66% (Gallup, 2026). These data relate to all employees, but they provide important context for understanding the picture in public institutions. I looked separately at the effect of economic uncertainty on motivation in the article on inflation and employee motivation.

Security keeps people in the institution; but what binds them to the work is meaning, fairness and being seen.

How Does a Public Sector Employee's Stress Affect Service?

A public sector employee's psychological state is reflected directly in the service citizens receive. A stressed and burnt-out employee may listen less to the applicant, may be more prone to error or may use language that increases tension. This raises complaints, tension and even incidents of violence, creating a vicious circle.

In a systematic review of 36 prospective studies on burnout, burnout was found to be associated with later absenteeism, job dissatisfaction, disability pension and presenteeism (Salvagioni et al., 2017). Because staff turnover is low in the public sector, these losses show up more in the form of absence and coming to work but being unable to be productive. In an analysis in the UK, presenteeism, at around £24 billion, was calculated to be the largest item in the annual cost of poor mental health to employers (Deloitte, 2024). This figure is specific to the UK; but it shows how large the problem of "being in the institution but not being there" can be.

Suppose a civil servant working in a municipality's zoning department faces, every day, the anger of citizens whose applications are rejected. One day a citizen bangs on their desk, shouting and making threats. The incident is not recorded, and their supervisor says, "that's the nature of this job." The next day the civil servant struggles to come to work, in the following weeks avoids eye contact with applicants and starts taking sick leave frequently. Yet recording the incident, the supervisor holding a short supportive conversation and, if necessary, temporarily moving the employee to a different duty could have steered this process very differently. Moreover, other civil servants in the same unit are watching how the incident is handled; management's reaction gives everyone the answer to the question "are we protected here?" When that answer is negative, later incidents are not reported and the true scale of the problem becomes invisible.

Psychological Harassment in Public Institutions and the Legal Framework

One of the important sources of stress in public institutions is psychological harassment within hierarchical relationships. Prime Ministry Circular No. 2011/2, titled "Prevention of Psychological Harassment (Mobbing) in the Workplace", covers both the public and private sectors. The Circular treats combating psychological harassment first and foremost as the employer's duty and requires all necessary measures to be taken. It states that support will be provided through psychologists on the ALO 170 line (Turkey's labour hotline) and that a Psychological Harassment Combat Board will be established within the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. It also requires complaints to be examined thoroughly and quickly.

For employees working in institutions with worker status, article 417 of the Turkish Code of Obligations No. 6098 also places on the employer an obligation to take the necessary measures so that employees are not subjected to psychological harassment. For managing psychosocial risks, the Ministry of Labour and Social Security's 2024 "Information Guide on Psychosocial Factors" offers a guiding framework under headings such as workload and work pace, control, organisational culture, interpersonal relationships and career development. I covered organisations' obligations on mobbing in detail in the article on workplace mobbing and employer obligations.

What Can Institution Managers Do?

In public institutions, budget and authority limits may be narrow; but many of the factors affecting motivation and mental health are in the manager's hands. The steps that can be taken are:

1. A protocol against citizen-initiated violence: Recording verbal and physical attacks, security support, the employee being able to step away from duty for a short time after an incident, and psychological support.
2. Visibility and appreciation: The employee's effort being regularly seen and acknowledged by supervisors. Appreciation is one of the most powerful motivation tools that requires no budget.
3. Voice and participation: Seeking the views of frontline employees in improving work processes. The employee who has the most contact with citizens is the person who best knows where problems get tangled.
4. Fair distribution of workload: Making pile-ups visible and balancing the work between individuals and units.
5. Change management: Giving employees timely information and training during transitions to new legislation and systems, and preparing the explanations to be given to citizens in a common language.
6. Training supervisors: The strongest-evidenced recommendation in the WHO's guidelines on mental health at work is mental health training for managers (strong recommendation, moderate-certainty evidence) (WHO, 2022). It is critically important that unit supervisors notice an employee who is struggling and talk to them supportively.
7. Stress management training: Cognitive-behavioural programmes are among the approaches showing the greatest effect among workplace stress management interventions (Richardson and Rothstein, 2008).
8. Development and meaning: Opening up room for development for employees through routes such as in-service training, rotation, project assignments and mentoring. Making the contribution of public service to society visible also nourishes a sense of meaning.
9. Reporting and complaint channels: An internal process for complaints of psychological harassment and unfairness that is trustworthy, protects confidentiality and works quickly.

Skills That Can Be Built in Training for Employees

Alongside organisational measures, giving public sector employees individual coping skills can be a complementary part of the programme. These skills do not mean the employee is the source of the problem; they help them protect themselves in difficult conditions. Topics that can be covered in in-service training include:

• Calming a tense conversation: A calm tone of voice, naming the person's feeling ("I understand you are angry because you were kept waiting"), giving clear and brief information, and ways of turning to a supervisor or security when needed.
• Not taking it personally: Recognising that a citizen's anger is often directed at the system, the waiting time or their own difficult circumstances, and not perceiving it as an attack on oneself.
• Brief recovery during the day: Making small but effective pauses a habit after a difficult conversation, such as a few breathing exercises, a short walk or a glass of water.
• Setting boundaries: Not replying to work-related messages outside working hours, and making the transition between work and home with a deliberate ritual.
• Recognising early signs: Noticing signs such as sleep problems, constant tension and intense reluctance before going to work, and asking for support.

It is hard for these skills to become lasting through a one-off seminar. In a meta-analysis examining workplace resilience programmes, the effect was found to diminish over time and face-to-face or one-to-one formats were found to be more effective (Vanhove et al., 2016). For this reason it is recommended that training be supported with reinforcement sessions.

How Do You Get Started in Your Organisation?

1. Needs analysis: You can start by examining absence, sick leave durations, citizen complaints, violent incidents and transfer requests by unit. Then an anonymous psychosocial risk and motivation survey is run among employees, and focus group interviews are held with small groups from units with intense contact with citizens. Questions such as "What wears you down most in your job?" and "Do you feel your effort is seen?" make the institution's real pressure points visible.

2. Programme: Based on the analysis, policy changes at management level and training for supervisors and employees are planned. The programme may include a post-violence support protocol, supportive leadership training for supervisors, citizen communication and handling difficult conversations, stress management workshops and, where needed, a confidential psychological support service. The ILO's 2026 report stresses that individual measures should complement, not replace, organisational measures (ILO, 2026). You can explore training and consultancy options on the corporate services page.

3. Measurement: Repeating the surveys at set intervals, changes in absence and sick leave durations, complaint and violence records and the usage rate of the support service are monitored together. The results are shared with unit supervisors and the next steps of the programme are decided together. The ILO also proposes absence, turnover, reports of violence and harassment, use of support services and employee surveys as monitoring indicators (ILO, 2026).

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do public sector employees burn out despite job security?

Job security reduces anxiety about losing one's job; but it does not remove sources of stress such as workload, tension caused by citizens, low autonomy and a lack of appreciation. Burnout is an occupational phenomenon that arises when this chronic stress is not successfully managed.

How can motivation be increased in public institutions?

There are many ways that require no budget: making effort visible, participation in decision processes, fair distribution of work, development opportunities and a supportive supervisory attitude. These factors form the basis of sources of motivation other than pay.

Where can an employee who is subjected to psychological harassment in the public sector apply?

First, the institution's own complaint and investigation mechanisms can be used. Under Circular No. 2011/2, the ALO 170 line is also a channel for information and support. For legal processes, it is recommended to seek a lawyer's opinion.

Can a programme also be implemented in a small public unit?

Yes. In small units the programme can be simpler: supervisors receiving a short training, a clear support flow after violence, workload being discussed in regular team meetings and, when needed, confidential psychological support bought in from outside is a good start.

• #public sector employees
• #public administration
• #work stress
• #employee motivation

Yazar

Eda Erkan Alapala

Klinik Psikolog. İstanbul Kent Üniversitesi Klinik Psikoloji Tezli Yüksek Lisans mezunu; bilişsel davranışçı terapi, çocuk merkezli oyun terapisi ve çocuk-ergen psikoterapisi alanlarında eğitimlerini tamamlamıştır.

Eğitimler