A version of this article originally appeared in Quartz’s Leadership newsletter. Sign up here to get the latest leadership news and insights straight to your inbox.
Leadership has never been a low-pressure job, but something has shifted. The Brunswick Group's Leadership Stress Index now puts executive stress above even the peaks of the COVID-19 pandemic, when mass layoffs and supply chain collapses fractured many organizations. That the present moment exceeds it says something about how much the environment has changed, and how little relief has followed.
The consequences extend beyond the executive suite. Sustained stress narrows cognitive perspective. It pushes leaders from strategic planning into reactive thinking. Misjudgments are more likely to happen, compounding the pressure on the people who work for them. Organizational performance suffers. Employee well-being follows.
What stress does to the brain isn't only psychological. Researchers Sandy Dickerson and Margaret Kemeny identified the biological dimension in foundational work that showed potent stressors — particularly those involving public scrutiny — trigger elevated cortisol, the hormone associated with the body's fight-or-flight response. Prolonged exposure to that biochemical state warps judgment, feeding the narrow thinking and impulse reactions that undo careful decision-making.
How leaders read a crisis
Scholars and practitioners have spent years trying to understand how leaders respond when pressure intensifies and uncertainty rises. Drawing on Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman's research on how people appraise threatening situations, and James Gross' work on emotion regulation, the Harvard Business Review laid out a typology built around two continuums: whether a leader responds with composure or dynamic action, and whether they read a crisis as an opportunity or a threat.
A "lighthouse" leader is what researchers describe as someone who projects stability while surrounded by turbulence. Studies of high-reliability organizations, including air traffic control units and hospital emergency departments, show this pattern is critical for preventing what researchers call the "emotional contagion of fear" — the spread of anxiety from a leader through a team the way a single voice can change a room's temperature.
No pattern is universally right. A leader who projects unwavering calm can read as aloof, slow, or detached, particularly when a crisis drags on and urgency is genuinely warranted. The typology offers a map, not a verdict.
There's also a distinction worth preserving between types of stress. Short, acute pressure can sharpen performance. A deadline or high-stakes presentation injects a useful sense of urgency that counteracts the grinding and chronic pressure that accumulates across months of organizational volatility. The destructive kind is the sustained kind, and the two require different responses.
The research points toward a starting place that most leaders skip: self-assessment. Frameworks are only useful if you know your default pattern under pressure. That knowledge isn't automatic. It has to be built.
Emotion regulation is the next layer. Psychologists use the term to describe the ability to reappraise a stressful situation before the body's response locks in a reaction. Mindfulness, cognitive reframing, and structured reflection are all ways of creating distance between the stimulus and the response. The goal isn't to suppress stress but to choose what to do with it.
A leader's response to pressure sets the boundaries of what a team believes is possible. Projecting composure doesn't mean pretending a crisis isn't real. It means showing the crisis is survivable. When people see that, they share information more freely, take more risks, and think more clearly together. Researchers call that condition psychological safety, and it's built through behavior, not instruction.
The tools for managing under pressure
Researchers haven't yet settled how stress shapes group decision-making. A November 2025 review in Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation., a German applied organizational psychology journal, called for more rigorous study that separates the effects of genuine stress from the effects of simple time pressure, which aren't the same thing. The tools for inducing and measuring stress in leadership research need sharpening before the findings can be applied with real precision. What the existing evidence does support is that diverse input during high-stakes decision-making counteracts the tunnel vision that stress produces. A leader under pressure who actively solicits disagreement is doing something structurally unusual, and structurally valuable.
None of this works as a uniform solution. Individual biological and psychological responses to stress vary widely. A practice that recalibrates one executive may do nothing for another. The executive team isn't a single organism. Managing stress across it requires treating those differences as real.
Stress isn't disappearing from leadership anytime soon. If anything, the forces driving it — economic uncertainty, political polarization, technological disruption, and constant public scrutiny — continue to intensify.
The research offers a useful reminder: stress itself is rarely the defining factor. How leaders interpret it, regulate it, and respond to it shapes everything that follows. Teams take cues from what leaders do under pressure. They watch for signs of panic, confidence, clarity, and resolve.
Managing stress, then, isn't merely a matter of personal resilience. It's an organizational responsibility. A leader's response to pressure influences how information flows, how decisions are made, and how people work together when conditions are at their most difficult.
The goal isn't to eliminate stress. It's to ensure that pressure doesn't become the force making decisions on your behalf.