Medical Certificate Purgatory in Japan's Traditional Corporations

The Invisible Trap of Light Duty, High Pay, and Long-Term Stagnation

July 17, 2026

This essay reflects on a largely unnamed condition in Japanese large corporations: workers returning from mental-health leave who become suspended for years inside a system of light duties, preserved salaries, and stalled recovery.

1. Defining the Phenomenon

Mental-health-related sickness absence is no longer a marginal event in Japanese workplaces. In the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's most recent Survey on Industrial Safety and Health, 10.4% of establishments reported having at least one worker who took a month or more of continuous leave for mental health reasons in the past year (MHLW, 2024). The share of workers on such leave rises with firm size — from 0.3% at the smallest establishments to 1.0% at those with a thousand or more employees — which is to say that the phenomenon this essay describes is concentrated precisely where the institutional machinery of protection is most developed.

In Japan's large corporations, employees who return to work after sick leave due to depression or other mental illnesses frequently become locked into the following condition for extended periods, often years or even decades:

Restricted duties consisting of light, low-responsibility tasks
Unchanged high salaries from before their leave
Continued medication, often accompanied by a visible physical toll
Classification as a "successful return to work," rendering their actual condition invisible

This paper refers to this state as "Medical Certificate Purgatory": neither heaven nor hell, but a condition of indefinite suspension between the two.

By "Medical Certificate Purgatory," I mean a structure in which those who submit a medical certificate are treated with excessive protection and become unable to leave that protection, while those who do not submit one are made to absorb the resulting burden. Submit the certificate, and you enter purgatory. Do not submit it, and you face the hell of supporting someone else's purgatory. This double structure is the core problem in Japan's traditional corporations.

2. Why This State Emerges

The Corporate Logic

Japan's employment regulations make it nearly impossible to dismiss permanent employees: Article 16 of the Labour Contracts Act codifies the courts' long-standing "abuse of the right to dismiss" doctrine, under which a dismissal lacking objectively reasonable grounds is void.
More fundamentally, the underlying employment model matters. In what the labor scholar Keiichiro Hamaguchi calls Japan's membership-based employment system, the firm hires a person, not a job; duties are unspecified and reassignable at the company's discretion, and in exchange the member is owed a place in the organization (Hamaguchi, 2024). When a member can no longer perform their duties, the system's native response is not exit but reassignment — including reassignment to duties that barely exist.
A light-duty return to work is more cost-effective for the company than an extended leave of absence.
Establishing a formal return-to-work support framework allows the company to satisfy legal and social obligations.
Large corporations, which tend to have more developed trial attendance and gradual resumption systems, paradoxically facilitate this kind of long-term stagnation — consistent with the firm-size gradient in the MHLW data above.

In principle, light duties and work accommodations after return to work are supposed to be a temporary bridge toward recovery, and as a temporary measure they are well supported: a foundational review of modified-work programs concluded that they facilitate return to work for temporarily and permanently disabled workers (Krause, Dasinger & Neuhauser, 1998). Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's return-to-work support guidance likewise treats changes in job content, workload, work accommodations, and follow-up as parts of a return-to-work plan — something with stages and an intended end. The problem is that, in practice, this bridge quietly becomes a residence, and both the employee and the company lose sight of when to leave it.

The Individual's Logic

The objectively favorable conditions of high pay and low workload eliminate the motivation to leave.
There is a desire to preserve an identity tied to belonging to a large corporation — an identity that membership-based employment is designed to cultivate.
Fear of failing to adapt to a new environment is especially acute in those who have experienced depression.
Depression itself strips away the capacity to imagine the future, making the option of change literally invisible. This is not merely a metaphor. A substantial body of clinical research argues that impaired prospection — the mental simulation of possible futures — is not a side effect of depression but close to its causal core: depressed individuals generate fewer and less vivid positive future scenarios, and this deficit feeds hopelessness and inaction (Roepke & Seligman, 2016).

The Systemic Logic

Seniority-based wages, retirement allowances, social credibility, and health insurance function simultaneously as welfare provisions and as chains that make departure increasingly difficult. Organizational research has long described this mechanism: accumulated "side-bets" (Becker, 1960) generate what Meyer and Allen (1991) call continuance commitment — remaining not because one wants to stay, but because the accumulated cost of leaving has grown too large.
Once classified as a successful return, the employee's long-term trajectory is tracked by no one: not the company, not the medical system, not the government. Even the epidemiological literature reflects this: the few Japanese cohort studies that follow workers after return from depression-related leave note explicitly how rare such long-term follow-up is (Endo et al., 2013).

3. The Nature of the Trap

The Trap Visible from Outside

A comfortable environment paradoxically severs individuals from their authentic lives and binds them to the company. To borrow the words of Char Aznable from Mobile Suit Gundam, these are people whose "souls are bound by gravity." The stronger the gravitational pull of high pay, stability, and belonging, the more the soul is pressed to the ground, and the greater the energy required to rise.

Occupational psychology has, in fact, given this gravity a name. A Swedish research program initiated by Gunnar Aronsson and colleagues describes workers who remain in a non-preferred workplace while perceiving no realistic possibility of finding an equivalent job elsewhere as "locked-in" (Aronsson, Dallner & Gustafsson, 2000; Stengård et al., 2016). The findings are sobering: being locked-in — or even merely at risk of becoming locked-in — predicts poorer subjective health and more depressive symptoms over time (Stengård et al., 2016), and locked-in positions are associated with higher rates of long-term sickness absence (Fahlén et al., 2009).

Medical Certificate Purgatory is a particular — and particularly insidious — variant of the locked-in position. The Swedish literature mostly pictures a worker who knows they would rather be elsewhere. In Purgatory, the conditions are objectively favorable, and the illness itself erodes the capacity to form a preference for leaving. The lock is not only on the door; it is on the faculty that would notice the door.

The Trap Invisible from Within

More cruelly, the person trapped is often unaware of being trapped at all. What depression steals is not only motivation, but the very capacity to imagine a future (Roepke & Seligman, 2016). It is less that they cannot escape into space and more that they can no longer imagine that space exists.

4. The Long-Term Cost

Professional Cost

Years or decades of light duties cause occupational skills to stagnate and atrophy. By the time of retirement, the individual may find themselves without competencies transferable to the outside world. Research on who becomes locked-in points in the same direction: a mismatch between a person's abilities and their tasks — including deficient work ability that goes unaddressed — raises the odds of ending up stuck (Stengård et al., 2019). What no cohort study has yet measured is the skill trajectory of workers held on light duties for a decade or more; that absence of data is itself part of the problem this essay describes.

Medical Cost

Long-term medication carries a cumulative burden of its own. Naturalistic and patient-perspective studies of long-term antidepressant use document substantial rates of weight gain, sexual dysfunction, emotional blunting, daytime sedation, and difficulty discontinuing (Bet et al., 2013; Cartwright et al., 2016). In the cases I have observed directly, the toll is also visible — dry, darkened skin, a prematurely aged appearance — though I note this as an observation from the field, not a clinical claim. Across a timespan of decades, these are consequences that cannot be ignored, and they are consequences that the annual "return-to-work successful" checkbox never registers.

Psychological Cost

A fixed self-perception of being someone who cannot do anything deepens over time, creating a downward spiral of diminishing self-worth. Here again the locked-in literature is suggestive: helplessness and locked-in status appear to feed each other over time, with helpless individuals more likely to become stuck, and stuckness in turn cementing helplessness (Stengård et al., 2017) — a workplace echo of the learned-helplessness tradition in clinical psychology. The moderate challenge and sense of achievement essential to genuine recovery are permanently withheld.

Existential Cost

Perhaps most grave of all, an identity fused with corporate belonging persists for decades, leaving the individual upon retirement with no answer to the question, "Who am I?" This is the dark side of membership-based employment: when the firm hires the whole person rather than a set of skills, the whole person is what stagnates. Reaching old age without having recovered, without having reclaimed oneself, is a quiet and largely unacknowledged tragedy.

5. The Impact on Others

Medical Certificate Purgatory is not solely the affected individual's problem. Those who submit medical certificates are fixed inside the company through excessive protection. Meanwhile, the people around them are treated institutionally as healthy workers capable of normal duties, and therefore become the ones who absorb the work shifted away from light-duty employees.

This burden is most often carried, without additional compensation, by single employees, childless employees, and non-permanent staff.

They carry heavier workloads for lower pay.
They lack institutional protections and have little recourse to voice their situation.
They endure a slow erosion of energy while carrying a justified anger at structural injustice.

Organizational justice research predicts exactly this friction. Colella's model of accommodation fairness shows that coworkers judge the fairness of a colleague's accommodation by comparing outcomes — who gets what duties, for what pay — and that these judgments turn hostile when the accommodation is salient and touches their own workload (Colella, 2001). The problem is sharpest for invisible conditions: because medical information is confidential, coworkers see the light duties and the preserved salary but not the reason, and this information vacuum systematically breeds negative inferences about fairness (Colella, Paetzold & Belliveau, 2004). The medical certificate protects the patient's privacy and, in the same stroke, manufactures resentment around them.

This friction is not unique to medical accommodations. The work–family literature has mapped an analogous pattern under the name work–family backlash: work–life balance policies, however well intentioned, generate negative attitudes, emotions, and behaviors among those around their beneficiaries, through mechanisms of perceived inequity, stigma, and spillover (Perrigino, Dunford & Wilson, 2018). The burden-shifting perception itself has been quantified: in UK national survey data, 35% of workers agreed that those who work flexibly generate more work for others (Chung, 2020). And the damage radiates beyond the direct parties: among academic scientists and engineers, merely working in an environment marked by flexibility stigma predicted lower job satisfaction and weaker intentions to stay, net of gender and parenthood — the stigma degrades the workplace even for childless colleagues who use no accommodation at all (Cech & Blair-Loy, 2014). Recent experimental evidence adds a twist that matters here: when flexible arrangements are framed as concessions to particular groups rather than as tools for everyone, the penalty for using them falls hardest on fathers and childless workers (Wang & Chung, 2026).

The coworkers' side of the ledger also has a name in the literature: presenteeism — working while unwell. In Japanese employer data, presenteeism accounts for roughly 64% of total health-related costs, dwarfing the 11% attributable to absenteeism (Nagata et al., 2018); a recent national estimate puts mental-health-related presenteeism losses at over twenty-five times the corresponding absenteeism losses (Hara et al., 2025). The certificate-holders' reduced load does not vanish; it migrates to colleagues who keep working through their own deteriorating condition — the very population that never appears in any return-to-work statistic.

Nor is the "justified anger" of the burden-bearers merely a morale problem. Perceived organizational injustice is an established health hazard in its own right: in Finnish hospital cohort data, employees who perceived low justice had 1.7 to 2.4 times the odds of poor self-rated health and minor psychiatric disorder, along with markedly higher sickness absence (Elovainio, Kivimäki & Vahtera, 2002), findings extended prospectively in the British Whitehall II cohort (Kivimäki et al., 2004). And the burden-bearers' predicament — more effort for no additional reward — is the textbook configuration of Siegrist's effort–reward imbalance model (Siegrist, 1996); in Whitehall II, effort–reward imbalance and relational injustice each predicted subsequent sickness absence (Head et al., 2007). Here the circle closes. The structure that overprotects one certificate holder imposes on the people beside them precisely the psychosocial conditions that occupational epidemiology identifies as pathways toward the next depression — and the next certificate. Purgatory does not merely burden its neighbors. It recruits them.

Companies are not entirely unaware of this difficulty. In a JILPT survey of employers, the question of what work to assign and where to place employees after their return from leave was cited as a major challenge in balancing medical treatment and work. In other words, what to give a returning employee, how far to restore their duties, and who absorbs the remaining work are not merely local workplace frictions. They are institutional problems.

It is essential to recognize that this is not a conflict between individuals. It is a failure of institutional design. The problem is not the protected versus those who bear the burden. It is the structure that produces this distortion in the first place.

6. Points of Contact with Existing Research

As far as I can tell, there is little research that treats this phenomenon as one integrated structure of light duty, high pay, and long-term fixation. But the neighboring fields are well populated, and mapping them shows precisely where the gap lies.

Return to work is not recovery. Japanese cohort data make this unmistakable. Among 540 employees at a major telecommunications company who returned from a first depression-related leave, almost half experienced recurrent sickness absence during the 8.5-year follow-up — 47.1% within five years — with recurrence concentrated in the first two to three years (Endo et al., 2013). In the same cohort, 37% recurred within roughly two years, and high organizational job demand was an independent risk factor (Endo et al., 2015). When leave does recur, the second episode tends to be longer than the first (Endo et al., 2019). Recurrence after return is common enough that randomized trials have been run specifically to prevent it (Arends et al., 2014). The institutional category "successful return" thus conceals a clinically fragile population.

The locked-in literature. As discussed in Section 3, Scandinavian research has established that being stuck in a non-preferred workplace with low perceived employability damages health over time (Stengård et al., 2016). But this literature has not examined the gilded variant — stuckness under conditions of high pay and formal protection — nor the case where illness erodes the very preference-formation that the locked-in definition presupposes.

Accommodation fairness and coworker burden. Colella and colleagues have theorized how coworkers judge accommodations (Colella, 2001; Colella et al., 2004), but this work centers on the accommodation event, not on accommodations that persist for decades and reorganize a workplace's division of labor around them.

Work–family backlash and flexibility stigma. The dark side of family-oriented accommodation has been mapped in some detail (Perrigino et al., 2018; Chung, 2020; Cech & Blair-Loy, 2014) — but that literature concerns arrangements that are voluntary, largely visible, and in principle finite. A medical-certificate accommodation is involuntary, confidential, and open-ended, which disables the very fairness-restoring moves the flexibility literature recommends, such as disclosure and universal framing (Colella et al., 2004; Wang & Chung, 2026). Tellingly, the current flagship review of work–life balance policy effectiveness names the impact on coworkers as a direction for future research (Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2025) — even where the policies themselves are well studied, the neighbor's side of the ledger is not.

Presenteeism. The cost literature (Nagata et al., 2018; Hara et al., 2025) quantifies the losses of those who work while unwell, but does not connect those losses to their structural twin: the protected under-employment of certificate holders whose displaced workload produces the presenteeism next door.

Japanese return-to-work practice. Japan has developed a distinctive infrastructure here, notably the "Rework Program" of pre-return rehabilitation (Akiyama et al., 2010), and multicenter cohort data suggest participants show significantly better work continuation after return than treatment-as-usual (Ohki, Igarashi & Yamauchi, 2021). But the outcome measured is continuation of attendance — precisely the metric under which Purgatory counts as success.

The punitive cousin. Journalism has already named the punitive version of institutionalized idleness: the oidashibeya, or "banishment room," in which surplus employees are given meaningless tasks until they resign (Tabuchi, 2013), a lineage running back to the madogiwa-zoku of the 1970s. Both phenomena grow from the same root — employment protection plus membership-based reassignment — but where the banishment room weaponizes idleness to expel, Purgatory administers idleness to retain. The punitive form has a name and a public; the protective form has neither.

The subject of this essay falls in the joints between these fields. The point is not that light duties are inherently bad. Light duties and reduced hours are useful — evidence-backed — as part of return-to-work support (Krause et al., 1998). Even so, the systematic review conducted for Japan's evidence-based return-to-work guidance found the evidence on such accommodations thin, particularly for mental-health-related leave (Nogawa & Kojimahara, 2018). The problem is that we know far less about what happens when these accommodations become prolonged, fixed, and corrosive to occupational recovery and coworker perceptions of fairness. Existing research has examined return-to-work outcomes, recurrent leave, continued employment, workplace accommodations, and presenteeism. What remains insufficient is a view that treats light duty, high pay, corporate status, occupational stagnation, and inability to exit as a single long-term structure. What this essay calls Medical Certificate Purgatory is the condition that appears at this junction: institutionally counted as success, yet existentially experienced as stagnation.

Why the Gap Emerges

Classified as a successful return to work, the situation is never recognized as a problem; the standard outcome measures — days to return, continuation of attendance, recurrence of formal leave — are all satisfied by a worker suspended in Purgatory.
Companies have little incentive to cooperate with research that exposes these realities.
Because both the individual and the employer regard the arrangement as working, it never becomes a subject of inquiry.
Long-term follow-up after return is rare even in the best cohort studies, which typically end within a few years of reinstatement (Endo et al., 2013).

This is not a complete void. It is an unmapped space between existing fields of research.

7. Is There a Way Out?

Resolution at the individual level is difficult. However, a meaningful direction might look like this:

Shifting the goal of treatment from maintaining the status quo to genuine recovery.
Working with a skilled psychiatrist or counselor toward the horizon of eventually graduating from this environment. It is worth noting that the clinical literature on prospection points the same way: therapeutic approaches that deliberately rebuild future-directed thinking — goal-setting, planning, positive expectancy — show promise against depression (Roepke & Seligman, 2016).
Recovering the ability to imagine a life outside the corporate 틀, the mold that has shaped not just the boundaries of one's work, but the contours of one's selfhood.

About 틀: This Korean word points not only to an outer frame, but to a mold that shapes a person's thought, identity, and sense of what is possible. Leaving such a mold is not merely stepping outside a boundary; it requires rebuilding the self.

The last point is the most difficult. What is needed first is not the act of leaving, but the recovery of the capacity to imagine leaving.

At a structural level, the definition of success in return-to-work support must be reconceived, from resumption of employment to long-term recovery and autonomy. The research field has begun to move in this direction under the banner of sustainable return to work, which asks not whether a worker came back but whether their working life holds up over time (Etuknwa, Daniels & Eib, 2019); Japan's own Rework infrastructure shows that pre-return rehabilitation can improve work continuation (Ohki et al., 2021). But sustainability of attendance is still not recovery of a person. It is not enough to ask whether the person is showing up at work. We must ask whether they are recovering as a worker — whether they are regaining their capacities and choices — and whether the system is producing unfair burdens for those around them. Accommodations should carry review points and time horizons, as the MHLW's own guidance implies but practice forgets. This is a challenge that can only be met through coordinated effort among corporations, the medical community, and government.

Conclusion

At the heart of this issue lies a paradox: well-intentioned systems bind people.

Companies comply with the law. Medicine provides treatment. Individuals strive to adapt. No single actor bears malicious intent. And yet the aggregate result is that people are severed from their authentic lives and spend decades suspended in lukewarm water.

This is not a question of individual weakness. It is a quiet tragedy produced by structure itself. And because it has satisfied every metric we currently use, the first step against it is the one this essay attempts: giving it a name.

References

Akiyama, T., Tsuchiya, M., Igarashi, Y., Ozaki, N., Yokoyama, M., Katagiri, Y., et al. (2010). "Rework Program" in Japan: Innovative high-level rehabilitation. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 2, 208–216.

Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. (2025). How effective are work-life balance policies? The importance of inclusion. Vol. 12, 73–108.

Arends, I., van der Klink, J. J. L., van Rhenen, W., de Boer, M. R., & Bültmann, U. (2014). Prevention of recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders: results of a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 71(1), 21–29.

Aronsson, G., Dallner, M., & Gustafsson, K. (2000). Yrkes- och arbetsplatsinlåsning: En empirisk studie av omfattning och hälsokonsekvenser [Locked-in, in the occupation and the workplace: An empirical study of prevalence and health consequences]. Arbete & Hälsa, 5, 1–25.

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 32–40.

Bet, P. M., Hugtenburg, J. G., Penninx, B. W., & Hoogendijk, W. J. (2013). Side effects of antidepressants during long-term use in a naturalistic setting. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 23(11), 1443–1451.

Cartwright, C., Gibson, K., Read, J., Cowan, O., & Dehar, T. (2016). Long-term antidepressant use: patient perspectives of benefits and adverse effects. Patient Preference and Adherence, 10, 1401.

Cech, E. A., & Blair-Loy, M. (2014). Consequences of flexibility stigma among academic scientists and engineers. Work and Occupations, 41(1), 86–110.

Chung, H. (2020). Gender, flexibility stigma and the perceived negative consequences of flexible working in the UK. Social Indicators Research, 151(2), 521–545.

Colella, A. (2001). Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 100–116.

Colella, A., Paetzold, R., & Belliveau, M. A. (2004). Factors affecting coworkers' procedural justice inferences of the workplace accommodations of employees with disabilities. Personnel Psychology, 57, 1–23.

Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational justice: Evidence of a new psychosocial predictor of health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1), 105–108.

Endo, M., Haruyama, Y., Muto, T., Yuhara, M., Asada, K., & Kato, R. (2013). Recurrence of sickness absence due to depression after returning to work at a Japanese IT company. Industrial Health, 51(2).

Endo, M., Muto, T., Haruyama, Y., Yuhara, M., Sairenchi, T., & Kato, R. (2015). Risk factors of recurrent sickness absence due to depression: a two-year cohort study among Japanese employees. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 88, 75–83.

Endo, M., Haruyama, Y., Mitsui, K., Muto, G., Nishiura, C., Kuwahara, K., Wada, H., & Tanigawa, T. (2019). Durations of first and second periods of depression-induced sick leave among Japanese employees: the Japan sickness absence and return to work (J-SAR) study. Industrial Health.

Etuknwa, A., Daniels, K., & Eib, C. (2019). Sustainable return to work: A systematic review focusing on personal and social factors. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 29.

Fahlén, G., Goine, H., Edlund, C., et al. (2009). Effort-reward imbalance, "locked in" at work, and long-term sick leave. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 82(2), 191–197.

Hamaguchi, K. (2024). What is "job-based employment" (job-gata koyō)? Japan Labor Issues, 8(49). Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training.

Hara et al. (2025). The impact of productivity loss from presenteeism and absenteeism on mental health in Japan. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

Head, J., Kivimäki, M., Siegrist, J., Ferrie, J. E., Vahtera, J., Shipley, M. J., & Marmot, M. G. (2007). Effort-reward imbalance and relational injustice at work predict sickness absence: The Whitehall II study. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 63, 433–440.

Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training (JILPT). (2013). Survey on support for balancing medical treatment and working life.

Kivimäki, M., Ferrie, J. E., Head, J., Shipley, M. J., Vahtera, J., & Marmot, M. G. (2004). Organisational justice and change in justice as predictors of employee health: the Whitehall II study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 931–937.

Krause, N., Dasinger, L. K., & Neuhauser, F. (1998). Modified work and return to work: A review of the literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 8(2), 113–139.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Return-to-work support guidance for workers absent due to mental health problems.

Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. (2024). Survey on Industrial Safety and Health (Fact-finding Survey), 2023: Summary of results.

Nagata, T., Mori, K., Ohtani, M., et al. (2018). Total health-related costs due to absenteeism, presenteeism, and medical and pharmaceutical expenses in Japanese employers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(5), e273–e280.

Nogawa, K., & Kojimahara, N. (2018). Work accommodation at the time of return-to-work for workers on sick leave: A qualitative systematic review with recommendations for Return-to-work Guidance 2017 [in Japanese]. Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi, 60(3), 61–68.

Ohki, Y., Igarashi, Y., & Yamauchi, K. (2021). Re-work Program in Japan — Overview and outcome of the program. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 616223.

Perrigino, M. B., Dunford, B. B., & Wilson, K. S. (2018). Work–family backlash: The "dark side" of work–life balance (WLB) policies. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 600–630.

Roepke, A. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Depression and prospection. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 23–48.

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41.

Stengård, J., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., Leineweber, C., & Aronsson, G. (2016). Stuck in a job: being "locked-in" or at risk of becoming locked-in at the workplace and well-being over time. Work & Stress, 30(2), 152–172.

Stengård, J., et al. (2017). Stuck in the job: Does helplessness precede being locked-in at the workplace or vice versa? An analysis of cross-lagged effects. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Stengård, J., et al. (2019). Who gets stuck in their workplaces? The role of matching factors, between individual and job, and demographics in predicting being locked in. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Article 8.

Tabuchi, H. (2013, August 16). Layoffs taboo, Japan workers are sent to the boredom room. The New York Times.

Wang, S., & Chung, H. (2026). Revisiting flexibility stigma: How framing remote working shapes bias against remote workers. Gender, Work & Organization.

This essay is a reflection composed from direct observation and dialogue with those affected. The studies cited above are the nearest empirical neighbors of the phenomenon, not proof of every claim; where a claim rests on observation alone, the text says so.

← Back to all essays