C-Suite Burnout: When Leadership Strain Becomes an Enterprise Risk

Chronic executive stress degrades leadership quality over time. What can boards do to address burnout as a systemic, organizational condition rather than a personal failing?

In recent years, a growing number of senior leaders have stepped away from their roles, citing the cumulative toll of prolonged pressure on their health, families and career performance. These departures are often publicly framed as personal decisions, such as a need for rest, a desire for balance, or a change in life priorities. Yet inside organizations, the consequences are felt as disrupted strategy and slower decision-making.  

“When a CEO or senior executive exits due to burnout, it’s usually abrupt and unplanned,” says Matt Dallisson, Managing Partner at Signium in London.

“This sudden break in leadership continuity impacts the company internally, but also affects investor and market confidence. It can be quite damaging, which is why boards must determine whether potential CEO burnout is being managed with the same rigor as other enterprise risks.” 

Stress-related leadership exits are on the rise 

Across global markets, several high-profile executive exits over the past few years have referenced personal wellbeing or ongoing pressure as contributing factors. In some cases, leaders have been explicit about the physical and cognitive toll of the role. Others have used softer language in official statements, such as “stepping back for health reasons” or “reassessing long-term sustainability”.  

Sudden CEO departures usually spark short-term questions about succession and stability. Yet, far less attention is paid to whether the role itself has become unsustainable, or whether warning signs were missed along the way. According to Deloitte research, 73% of C-suite executives feel they’re unable to take the time they need to rest, and 74% report facing obstacles when it comes to achieving their wellbeing goals. The survey also uncovered that nearly 70% of C-suite executives are at risk of burnout, and are seriously considering quitting for a job that better supports their personal wellbeing.  

Dallisson says, “The focus on recruiting new leadership often overshadows the need to correct the imbalance that caused the CEO exit in the first place. The result is high C-level turnover, where the root of the problem is constantly overlooked.” 

Nine early warning signs of executive burnout 

Executive burnout doesn’t always resemble the disengagement or fatigue seen at lower organizational levels. Senior leaders typically retain outward performance, decisiveness, and stamina long after underlying strain has set in. The very traits that enabled leaders to reach the C-suite – their resilience, drive, and cognitive endurance – can mask deterioration until it becomes irreversible. 

At the executive level, the early warning signs of burn-out resemble the following: 

1. Narrowing attention and reduced tolerance for ambiguity 

As cognitive load increases, leaders may become less comfortable holding competing possibilities in mind. Decisions that once involved nuance and exploration begin to feel draining. There is a stronger pull toward clarity, certainty, and closure, even when the situation is complex and unresolved. Over time, this can reduce openness to new information or alternative viewpoints. 

2. Shortened decision horizons and increased reliance on familiar patterns 

Under sustained pressure, leaders may prioritize what is immediately solvable over what is strategically necessary. Longer-term considerations are deferred in favor of actions that deliver quick resolution. Familiar approaches are reused because they require less mental effort, whether they offer the best solution or not.  

3. Irritability, impatience, or abrupt shifts in interpersonal behavior 

Burnout often erodes the emotional buffer that allows leaders to absorb friction without reacting. Small issues feel disproportionately taxing. Interactions may become sharper or more transactional, not due to intent, but because cognitive and emotional reserves are depleted. Teams often sense this change before leaders do. 

4. A growing sense of cognitive overload rather than physical fatigue 

At this level, burnout is less about tiredness and more about mental saturation. Leaders may feel constantly “on,” struggling to disengage even when not working. The challenge is limited mental bandwidth, and the sense that there is no remaining capacity to think clearly, absorb complexity, or recover between demands. 

5. Increasing centralization of decisions with the CEO 

Decisions that were once made across the executive team begin to funnel upward. This can look like tighter control, but often reflects a growing reluctance or a lack of capacity elsewhere in the system to make independent decisions. 

6. Reduced tolerance for dissent or alternative views 

Healthy debate may start to feel like friction rather than value. Leaders under strain may shut down challenges more quickly, not out of ego, but because differing perspectives add to an already heavy cognitive load. 

7. Delays in succession planning or leadership development 

Future-focused leadership work is often the first thing to slip when pressure is high. Over time, this creates a fragile system in which continuity depends on individuals rather than on prepared successors. 

8. Leaders delaying recovery time or working through illness 

Executives may pride themselves on pushing through, even when they’re feeling unwell or exhausted. While this is often admired culturally, it can signal that stepping back feels risky or impossible within the current operating model. 

9. A shift from strategic focus to constant operational firefighting 

Time and attention move away from long-term priorities toward urgent, day-to-day issues. When this becomes sustained rather than temporary, it indicates that the system is no longer effectively absorbing complexity. 

Sustained stress has well-documented effects on executive brain function. Elevated cortisol over long periods impairs the prefrontal cortex, which is the region responsible for judgment, impulse control, and complex decision-making. For leaders who must integrate incomplete information and make high-stakes trade-offs, these cognitive shifts have direct implications.  

Dallisson adds, “The issue is not intelligence or capability. It’s hardly fair to assume an executive is incapable when they’re facing burnout. We must acknowledge that human capacity is finite. Over-extending a leader’s capacity has real, measurable effects on their nervous system and behavior.” 

Why is burnout a governance issue? 

From a governance perspective, executive burnout intersects with several board-level responsibilities: 

• Decision quality 

Impaired judgment at the top cascades through the organization. When senior decisions lose nuance or speed, the effects ripple into capital allocation, risk appetite, and execution quality across the enterprise. 

• Continuity risk 

Sudden leadership exits disrupt strategy and delivery. Unplanned transitions force organizations into reactive succession, often at moments when stability and clarity are most needed. 

• Talent stability 

Senior-level burnout increases turnover risk across the leadership team. When pressure becomes normalized at the top, it signals to other leaders that sustainability is neither expected nor protected. 

• Investor confidence 

Markets respond poorly to unplanned leadership transitions. Abrupt exits raise questions about governance, internal controls, and the durability of the company’s leadership model. 

Despite this, many boards still treat burnout reactively, prioritizing damage control over understanding what drives C-suite burnout in the first place. 

What are the primary drivers of C-suite burnout? 

While individual resilience varies, executive burnout is rarely caused by workload alone. More often, it emerges from systemic conditions that compound over time. 

• Role accumulation  

Leaders gradually take on decisions and responsibilities that should sit elsewhere in the organization. Over time, this piles up, turning senior roles into a catch-all for issues that have not been clearly assigned or resolved. 

• Ambiguous authority 

When it is unclear who has the right to decide, problems are pushed up the chain. Executives then become involved in decisions that should not require their attention, adding unnecessary pressure and slowing the organization down. 

• Persistent crisis mode 

Many companies operate as if they are in constant emergency. When urgency becomes the norm rather than the exception, leaders are forced to stay in reactive mode, with little space to think, recover, or plan ahead. 

• Isolation 

As leaders rise, there are fewer places to think things through openly. With limited trusted peers or safe spaces to test ideas and concerns, decision-making becomes lonelier and more mentally demanding. 

“As the saying goes, it’s lonely at the top,” says Dallisson. “But if this kind of environment is the cause of C-suite burnout and leadership turnover, why are we accepting this logic blindly? Surely there are actions that boards can take to make the C-suite space a safer place for executives to exist.” 

System design checklist: Is your organization at risk of CEO burnout? 

Dallisson also notes, “If you want to address burnout effectively, you can do so by changing conditions, not personalities. This means reframing leadership sustainability as an issue with organizational design.” 

Key questions boards and executive teams should be asking include: 

• Are decision rights clear and distributed appropriately, or are too many decisions flowing back to the CEO by default? 

• Does the operating cadence allow for recovery and reflection, or does it keep leaders in a constant state of urgency? 

• Are leaders incentivized for endurance rather than output alone, and what behaviors are we unintentionally rewarding? 

• Do we have realistic, actively maintained succession plans for the CEO and key executive roles, or are these plans largely theoretical? 

• Are future leaders being developed through meaningful responsibility, or is leadership development being delayed under pressure? 

• Are senior leaders able to step back temporarily without creating instability, or does the system depend too heavily on individual presence? 

• How much of the executive agenda is consumed by operational firefighting versus long-term strategic work? 

• Are early signs of strain being discussed openly at the board level, or only after performance or people issues emerge? 

These questions help to identify and address potential cracks in the leadership structure. “In these environments, corporate wellbeing initiatives often become cosmetic rather than corrective,” says Dallisson. “Practical structural measures would yield better results.”  

Practical interventions to prevent CEO burnout 

Several governance-level tools are emerging as effective in reducing burnout risk: 

• Leadership capacity dashboards 

Beyond financial and operational metrics, some boards are beginning to track indicators such as leadership span of control, decision bottlenecks, role overload, and the concentration of critical decisions.  

• Decision-rights mapping 

Explicitly mapping where decisions sit, and where they should sit, reduces unnecessary escalation to the CEO. Over time, this creates more resilient teams that don’t rely on senior leaders to resolve issues that could be handled elsewhere. 

• Interim leadership playbooks 

Clear protocols for temporary role coverage reduce the perceived cost of stepping back. When leaders know that short absences will not destabilize the business, recovery becomes a viable option rather than a personal risk. 

• Structured executive sabbaticals 

Some organizations are beginning to formalize executive sabbaticals as part of leadership lifecycle planning. When designed properly, sabbaticals are less about absence, and more about system testing, ensuring that leadership teams, decision processes, and succession plans function without critical reliance on one individual. 

Sequenced intervention planning 

Instead of waiting for a leadership crisis to arise, these tools are most effective when applied deliberately over time. They reframe leadership capacity as a precious asset to be protected, rather than an infinite resource to be consumed. 

• First 30 days 

Relieve immediate pressure by clarifying decision flow, assigning authority, and addressing obvious overload. 

• 3 – 6 months 

Redesign leadership roles, workloads, and team structures to reduce exclusive dependency on individuals. 

• 6 – 12 months 

Embed leadership sustainability into governance processes, succession planning, and performance oversight. 

How Automattic institutionalizes recovery without weakening leadership continuity 

In the words of author Anne Lamott, “Almost everything will work again if you unplug it for a few minutes – including you.” 

Automattic, the distributed technology company behind WordPress.com and other major platforms, has formalized executive and employee sabbaticals as part of its long-term operating model. Under the company’s policy, employees become eligible for a three-month paid sabbatical after five years of continuous service.  

Not only does leadership actively encourage participation, but the policy applies broadly across all levels of the organization. This reinforces the idea that protecting capacity and personal wellbeing is a system-wide responsibility. In 2024, Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg, also took a sabbatical, temporarily redistributing responsibilities across the senior leadership team.  

Leaders and employees at Automattic have consistently described sabbaticals as supporting retention, reducing burnout risk, and strengthening organizational robustness. In reflecting on his sabbatical, Mullenweg described the experience as an opportunity for renewed perspective after stepping away from daily decision-making and highlighted the importance of rest in maintaining long-term productivity. 

From resilience to sustainability: why external perspective matters 

Executive burnout often persists because unsustainable conditions become normalized over time. From inside the system, it can be difficult to see how pressure has accumulated, where decision flow has narrowed, or how much cognitive load has concentrated at the top. A trusted external perspective can help boards and executive teams surface these patterns before they become performance issues or sudden exits. 

“This is not about simply removing pressure,” says Dallisson.

“Leadership will always be demanding, especially in volatile or complex environments. The question is whether the system adequately supports leaders in handling pressure, or leaves it to slowly wear down their ability to think and decide.” 

For years, leadership has been framed as resilience – the ability to endure, no matter what. Sustainability asks a different question: can leaders continue to perform well without being slowly depleted? C-suite burnout suggests many systems are not designed for that reality. 

What matters most is how organizations respond when strain shows up at the top. Reactive approaches treat burnout as a personal event and focus on managing the leadership gap it creates. A structural response looks at whether the role itself is set up to keep producing the same outcome, no matter who fills it.