Stress is nothing new for chief executives, who have always worked under pressure. But the way they are expected to manage it has started to change. The stigma around showing vulnerability is decreasing as the definition of resilience evolves.
Burnout is now firmly on the agenda, with concerns about attrition in the top role. Research shows that 234 CEOs left their roles in 2025, which was 16% more than in 2024 and 21% above the eight-year average. Shareholder activism has also intensified, with a six-year high in campaigns in 2024 and an “unprecedented” number of CEO resignations following activist pressure.
Yet despite this growing attention, CEO burnout is still poorly understood. Most research focuses on employees and middle managers. When CEOs are included, burnout is often portrayed as a more intense version of executive stress.
Burnout at the top is not just about the volume of pressure. It is also about how stress accumulates and how it affects judgment in a role defined by visibility, responsibility, and isolation.
CEOs have typically been rewarded for their endurance: the ability to stay calm, absorb strain, and continue making decisions under pressure. This resilience has long been seen as an essential leadership trait. But these qualities come with hidden risks.
Emotional control can mask early warning signs. What looks like composure might in fact reflect a slow draining of mental and emotional reserves that disrupts sleep and diminishes judgment long before performance visibly suffers.
This is why burnout at the top does not always show up as distress. Instead, it is a process of gradual erosion: poorer decisions, less openness to challenge, and greater risk tolerance. It is likely to emerge as poor judgment rather than a drop in productivity.
Using the same principle, speaking candidly about strain and expressing vulnerability can build trust with external stakeholders.
How can CEOs respond to burnout? For decades, the message was clear: never show weakness. You might unnerve investors, unsettle staff, and undermine your own authority.
When it comes to external stakeholders, evidence is emerging that challenges these fears. Studies suggest that stakeholders respond more positively when leaders accept responsibility when their organizations perform poorly rather than trying to deflect blame. Analysts assigned higher valuations to companies whose CEOs acknowledged disappointing performance than they did to firms where CEOs blamed external factors. Authenticity, it turns out, can build confidence rather than erode it.
Using the same principle, speaking candidly about strain and expressing vulnerability can build trust with external stakeholders. Measured disclosure can humanize leadership without weakening credibility. The key is balance: this is not about oversharing or turning personal struggle into brand identity. It’s about recognizing that silence can now carry its own costs.
When it comes to internal stakeholders, the dynamic is different, but arguably more powerful. Research into mental health at work shows that a healthy and sustainable work culture is more helpful for employees’ well-being than therapy or self-care resources. When CEOs acknowledge limitations or speak openly about the pressure they are under, they build psychological safety across the organization. Disclosure once carried reputational risk; today, non-disclosure can undermine trust.
More than any other executive, CEOs are isolated: they have few peers and are incentivized to project an image of composure. Openness can ease that burden and support their physical, cognitive, and emotional recovery. In high-pressure roles, this is essential for decision-making.
It is time for CEOs to question what is meant by resilience.
AI is being explored as a form of mental health support, including reducing anxiety among veterans. And it is easy to see why CEOs might also turn to it. Used as a work tool, AI can help them to prepare for difficult conversations, test decisions, and reflect on difficult trade-offs. For time-constrained CEOs without many trusted peers, this could also be useful as a form of mental health support.
But digital tools do not replace human connections. They cannot recreate the trust, belonging, or psychological safety that underpin healthy leadership and sound judgment. For CEOs already prone to isolation, relying on AI to manage their stress may reduce pressure in the short term, but it will deepen their disconnection over time.
It is time for CEOs to question what is meant by resilience. Today, resilience is no longer measured by how much pressure leaders can absorb, but by how they respond to it.
While it is normal to be nervous about AI, organizations must create a psychologically safe environment in which their employees can innovate and experiment, says Publicis Sapient’s Kameshwari Rao ...
Workforce agility, not access to AI tools, will define competitive advantage. Here’s how leaders can close the readiness gap....
Learn effective strategies for techies transitioning into leadership roles, including embracing human nature and fostering team cohesion....
Sitting on a board can be career-building, socially-elevating, and incredibly interesting, but it isn’t right for everyone. This is a must-have guide for aspiring board members and a hiring template for...
Explore first person business intelligence from top minds curated for a global executive audience