Part 3: Interpreting Your Results

Making Sense of What You See

Now that you've marked your observations, let's translate them into actionable insights.

Reading the Demands (Items 1–7)

If you're leaning left (unfavourable demand): This demand is elevated and may be draining your team's energy. This is a high-priority area.
If you're leaning right (favourable demand): This demand is likely well-managed. Keep an eye on it, but it's probably not your biggest leverage point right now.
If you're somewhere in the middle: The demand is present but not acute. Worth monitoring, especially if combined with other patterns.

Reading the Resources (Items 8–14)

If you're leaning left (LOW resource): This resource is missing or insufficient. This is a high-priority area for building up.
If you're leaning right (HIGH resource): This resource is present and likely supporting your team's motivation. Celebrate and maintain it.
If you're in the middle: There's some resource present but room to strengthen. Consider whether a small boost here could have disproportionate impact.

Solidifying Your Hypothesis

Your marks are based on your intuition and what you've noticed over time. Before you act or start a team conversation, it's worth testing whether what you're sensing is accurate.

For the 2–3 items you marked as highest priority, ask yourself:

Can I name 3–5 specific, concrete examples from the past few weeks that illustrate why I marked this item where I did?

For example:

If you marked "workload" toward unfavourable: Can you point to meetings that ran over, emails sent at 10pm, projects dropped because there's no bandwidth, people working weekends, vacation days not taken?
If you marked "autonomy" toward low: Have people actually said "I'm just told what to do" or "I don't have any say in this"? Or have you observed them waiting for permission on small decisions?
If you marked "feedback" toward low: When was the last time you gave specific positive feedback? When did someone last know exactly where they stand on a project?

Have I heard this directly from team members, or am I inferring based on what I see?

If you marked something as a problem, have people actually said it's a problem — or are you assuming based on what you observe? Both are valid, but direct input is stronger evidence.

Is this a recent shift or a chronic pattern?

Did this start after a specific event (restructure, new project, team member leaving), or has it always been this way? Recent shifts are often easier to address; chronic patterns may need deeper intervention.

Would others on the team mark the same things I did?

If you think role ambiguity is high, would they agree — or do they experience clarity that you're not seeing from your vantage point?

The strongest hypotheses are the ones you can support with evidence and that you're willing to test with your team.

Step 1: Look for Patterns

Don't focus only on single items. Look for clusters — combinations that reveal the bigger picture:

High demands + low resources = burnout risk

Example: High workload + low autonomy + low feedback. People are working hard but have no control, no clarity on how they're doing, and no buffer. This is a classic exhaustion pattern.

Moderate demands + strong resources = sustainable performance

This is the ideal state. Demands provide challenge and focus, but resources provide the fuel and support to meet them. If you're here, your job is to maintain it.

Low demands + high resources = potential for more challenge

People might be under-stretched. They have capacity, capability, and support — but not enough meaningful work to engage them fully. Consider whether they're ready for more complexity or scope.

Circle or highlight the 2–3 items that jumped out most strongly. These are your focus areas.

Step 2: Distinguish Between Root Causes and Symptoms

Not all demands and resources are created equal. Some are upstream drivers; others are downstream effects.

Example: Interpersonal conflict (Demand 7) might actually be a symptom of role ambiguity (Demand 3) or workload pressure (Demand 1). If people are unclear who owns what, or if they're stretched too thin to collaborate generously, friction is the natural result. Addressing the conflict directly might help temporarily — but if you don't address the root cause (the ambiguity or overload), the conflict will keep resurfacing.

Reflection question: Of the items you marked, which one feels like the root cause? If you addressed that, would some of the others improve as a side effect?

Step 3: Work with What You Can Actually Influence

Be realistic: not all demands are within your control to reduce.

Organizational restructuring, market pressures, budget cuts, regulatory requirements, client demands — these may be non-negotiable, at least in the short term. And that's okay. The JD-R model doesn't require you to eliminate all demands. It requires you to think strategically about how to help your team cope when you can't remove the stressor.

If You Can't Reduce the Demand: Focus on Buffering

Buffering means using resources to weaken the negative impact of demands on burnout and exhaustion.

The research shows that resources act as a protective buffer. When people have high demands and strong resources, they experience less strain than when they have high demands and low resources.

Examples of buffering in action:

High workload that you can't reduce → Strengthen autonomy (let people control how they work, even if you can't control how much), feedback (so they know their effort is noticed and valued), and high-quality connections (so they're not carrying the load alone).
Role ambiguity from an organizational restructure → Strengthen feedback (frequent check-ins to reduce uncertainty) and meaning & purpose (reconnect people to why their work matters, even if roles are shifting).
Job insecurity during a merger → Strengthen high-quality connections (so people feel less isolated in their anxiety) and positive climate (create psychological safety even when organizational safety is low).

Reflection question: For the demands you can't reduce, which resources would act as the strongest buffer for your team?

If You Have Resource Overflow: Consider Boosting

Conversely, if you have a team with high resources but low demands, people may feel under-challenged, restless, or underutilized. Good people start looking elsewhere — not because the culture is bad, but because the work isn't using their capacity.

In that case, consider boosting — increasing the right kind of demand to activate those resources.

Important distinction: Only boost with challenge demands (workload, task complexity, scope) — NOT hindrance demands (bureaucracy, conflict, ambiguity). Challenge demands cost energy but have growth potential. Hindrance demands just drain without benefit.

Examples of boosting in action:

High autonomy + low task complexity → Increase task complexity or scope. Give people more challenging problems to solve.
Strong development opportunities + low workload → Add stretch assignments or new responsibilities that push people's skills.
High feedback + low meaningful challenge → Co-create goals that matter more, or increase the visibility/impact of their work.

Reflection question: Do you have untapped resources that could be activated by increasing the right kind of challenge?

Step 4: Decide on Your Next Move

You have three options for what to do next:

Option 1: Deepen Your Understanding

If you want to go deeper on the demand or resource you identified, seek out research-backed information on that specific topic. Look for:

Research evidence explaining why this matters
Case examples from other leaders facing similar challenges
Practical strategies and tools that have been tested
Frameworks to deepen your thinking

The research gives you the "what" and "why." Your team gives you the "what specifically" and "what now."

For further reading, see: Tschierske, N. (2023). Better Work: A Leader's Guide to Creating Happier, Healthier, and More Productive Workplaces.

Option 2: Have a Conversation with Your Team

This is the most important step. Your observations from this assessment are hypotheses, not facts. Your team holds the real data.

You've noticed patterns from your vantage point as a leader. But you don't experience the work the way they do. They see things you don't. They feel things you can't fully access. And they have insights about what would actually help.

Don't skip this conversation. The assessment is a starting point — the team dialogue is where the real work begins.

See Part 4 for reflection questions and conversation starters.

Option 3: Experiment Small

Pick one micro-intervention and try it for 2 weeks. Notice what shifts.

Examples:

Cancel one recurring meeting (reduce workload)
Clarify one decision right (reduce role ambiguity)
Start a weekly "what went well" round (increase feedback and positive climate)
Assign a stretch project to someone ready for more (boost task complexity + autonomy)

Small experiments create momentum without overwhelming your team or yourself.

A Note on Buffer and Boost Dynamics

The interplay between demands and resources is not linear. They influence each other.

Resources buffer the impact of demands on strain. When demands are high, resources become even more important. They don't eliminate the demand, but they protect people from burning out under it.

Demands boost the impact of resources on engagement. When people have strong resources, moderate challenge demands amplify their motivation and energy. The resources get activated and put to use.

This is why the ideal state isn't "low demands, high resources" — it's "the right demands, strong resources." People need something meaningful to work on. But they need the support to do it well.

As you interpret your results, ask yourself:

Where do we need to buffer? (Can't reduce the demand, need to add resources)
Where do we need to boost? (Have the resources, need the right challenge)
Where do we need to both reduce and strengthen? (Overload + under-resourced)

Next: Part 4: Reflection & Conversation Starters