21 October 2026 
Emma Walton-Pond, Communications Officer
National Stress Awareness Day on 4 November is a useful moment for universities to reflect on how they support staff wellbeing.
But for university HR teams, the most important question may not be whether wellbeing support exists. It is whether institutions understand what is creating pressure in the first place.
Specifically, the question we all need to be asking is: Are universities listening to the causes of stress, or only responding to the symptoms?
Stress in higher education is rarely caused by one thing. It can be shaped by workload, resourcing, communication, change, uncertainty, leadership, student expectations, funding pressures and the day-to-day realities of working in a complex institution.
That means stress is not only a wellbeing issue, but a broader employee experience issue.
Employee assistance programmes, wellbeing resources and awareness campaigns all have a place. But if people are under sustained pressure because workloads are too high, priorities are unclear or teams lack the resources they need, support after the fact will only go so far.
Universities need to understand the working conditions behind stress, not just offer help once people are already struggling.
People Insight's latest HE benchmark data shows that 59% of HE employees say they can comfortably cope with their workload, compared with 63% across all sectors.
Just 58% say their institution does enough to support their health and wellbeing at work, compared with 66% across all sectors.
The wider conditions are also revealing. Only 64% say they have the equipment and resources needed to work effectively, compared with 72% across all sectors. Meanwhile, 65% report a positive work-life balance, compared with 73% across all sectors.
These findings signal challenges around capacity, sustainability and everyday working conditions.
Employee voice is another concern. Only 49% say senior leaders make the effort to listen to staff, while just 41% believe action will follow their employee survey. Both measures sit ten percentage points below the all-sector benchmark.
Why is this significant? Because addressing stress becomes harder when employees lack confidence that their concerns will be heard or acted on.
One risk with wellbeing data is treating it as a single institutional story.
Academic staff, research staff, professional services teams, technicians, managers and student-facing colleagues can experience very different pressures.
People Insight's HE data highlights these differences. Only 50% of academic staff report a positive work-life balance, compared with 71% of professional services staff. Similarly, 55% of academic staff say they have the equipment and resources needed to do their job, compared with 66% of professional services staff.
Differences also emerge around employee voice. Just 32% of academic staff believe action will follow their survey, compared with 37% of professional services staff.
These findings reinforce why universities should examine results by staff group, career stage, role and local context. Institutional averages can conceal very different experiences.
AI is increasingly part of the workload and wellbeing conversation. It has the potential to remove repetitive administration, reduce cognitive overload and give employees more time for higher-value work.
But implementation can also introduce uncertainty, capability gaps and pressure to deliver more.
EDUCAUSE's 2026 research into AI and work in higher education found that more than 70% of surveyed HE professionals used AI daily or weekly, while over half expressed concerns about associated risks.
Universities therefore need to ask more than whether employees are using AI. Do they have clear guidance, suitable tools and sufficient training? Do they feel comfortable experimenting? Is AI genuinely making workloads more manageable, or simply raising expectations? And are employees involved in decisions about how it will affect their roles?
These questions are explored through People Insight's AI Readiness Diagnostic, which examines confidence, capability, trust, employee involvement and the organisational conditions needed for responsible AI adoption.
For HR teams, the priority should be understanding whether AI's promised benefits are actually being felt by employees.
If universities want to reduce stress, they need to create conditions where employees can speak honestly before pressure becomes unsustainable.
That means asking better questions:
● Where is workload becoming unmanageable?
● Are pressures caused by volume, complexity, unclear priorities or insufficient resources?
● Do employees feel safe raising concerns?
● Can managers recognise stress and respond effectively?
● Are staff involved in decisions affecting their work?
● Do people believe speaking up leads to change?
These questions help HR teams move beyond generic wellbeing initiatives towards targeted action.
Universities are already using employee listening to better understand working conditions.
At the University of Surrey, an ongoing colleague voice strategy brought together surveys, onboarding and exit feedback, manager support and action planning. This supports a more continuous understanding of employee experience.
University of the Arts London used staff survey deep-dives to explore workload, line management, development, EDI and differences between employee groups, helping identify where more targeted action was needed.
At King's College London, rebuilding trust in employee listening was central to addressing staff apathy associated with previous lack of action. It is a reminder that listening only builds confidence when employees see meaningful follow-through.
National Stress Awareness Day offers a useful prompt, but sustainable improvement requires more than awareness.
First, listen before prescribing solutions. Understand the underlying causes of pressure rather than assuming additional wellbeing initiatives are the answer.
Second, review workload and resources together. Identify where excessive demands, insufficient capacity or unclear priorities are creating unnecessary stress.
Third, equip managers to have better conversations. Managers need the confidence to recognise stress, respond appropriately and escalate systemic issues.
Fourth, look beneath the averages. Different staff groups may need different interventions, particularly when workload, autonomy and support vary significantly.
Finally, close the loop. Show employees what is changing in response to their feedback and whether those changes are making a difference.
The wellbeing question every university HR team should be asking is not simply: what support do we offer?
It is: what is the employee experience of work actually doing to people's wellbeing?
National Stress Awareness Day gives universities a timely reason to ask that question. But meaningful progress depends on listening carefully, acting visibly and treating stress as a signal to understand, not simply a symptom to manage.
Jane Tidswell, HE Director
Jane.tidswell@peopleinsight.co.uk
