A recent survey reveals 70 percent of Brazilian leaders considered resigning due to mental health impacts. We examine why role design affects executive retention.
On September 4, 2026, Diário do Comércio published a report detailing a Conquer In Company survey of 400 Brazilian leaders and 350 human-resources professionals. These respondents were drawn from different sectors and regions of Brazil. The findings highlight a significant operational vulnerability for modern organizations facing retention challenges. The most striking data point revealed that 70% of surveyed leaders had considered leaving their roles because of impacts on their mental health.
The researchers asked participants about their perceived pressure, preparation, and operational burdens. The results show a professional workforce operating under immense daily strain. According to the report, 88% of surveyed leaders said they worked under constant pressure. Furthermore, 44.6% of respondents rated that pressure as high or extreme.
Leaders cited mental fatigue and exhaustion as frequent outcomes alongside high stress and difficulty disconnecting from work. The data suggests a significant mismatch between role demands and leadership readiness. A striking 78% of leaders said they had assumed their roles without adequate leadership training. These individuals reported having to learn to lead in practice.
Organizations appear to lack the infrastructure to prepare their managers for these demands. Sixty-three percent of managers said leadership training was a low priority in their companies. Human resources professionals observed the exact same gap in organizational support. The survey showed that 58.4% of HR professionals shared the perception that organizations invest too little in leadership development.
Giovana Chimentão, director of Education at Conquer In Company, argued that organizations often assume strong individual contributors automatically become strong leaders. She stated that leadership should be treated as a learned capability rather than an innate talent. Chimentão noted that leadership requires preparation and practice to manage people effectively. Managers also need continuous development to handle pressure and change.
These findings carry direct implications for founders and high performing executives. Sustained mental strain can severely compromise availability, judgment, and long term team management. This is fundamentally a role design problem rather than a simple failure of individual resilience. Operators cannot simply outwork a poorly structured leadership position.
During the toughest quarter of my career, I noticed that my ability to handle stress was directly tied to my cardiovascular fitness, not my mindset. I was trying to meditate my way out of a physiological deficit. Once we started looking at the data connecting aerobic capacity to emotional regulation and executive function, everything clicked. Physical capacity is the absolute foundation of mental resilience.
However, even the most physically prepared leaders will struggle in impossible roles. Organizations must audit the responsibilities assigned to their management teams before blaming individuals. Leaders need distinct boundaries to protect their focus and daily energy reserves. Companies must establish clear decision rights to prevent continuous operational escalation.
Executives who want to support long term stress resilience must evaluate organizational habits. Difficulty disconnecting is a clear system signal that requires immediate operational attention. Leaders should review after hours communication norms and total meeting loads. Prioritizing deep rest and physiological recovery is impossible if managers are expected to remain permanently available.
The Conquer In Company survey detailed specific friction points within management roles. The responsibilities most often identified as burdensome were developing people and managing conflict, cited by 58% of respondents. The exact same percentage reported difficulty balancing strategic and operational demands. Additionally, managing constant change was cited by 44% of the participating leaders.
Managing teams presented a unique set of reported obstacles for these executives. Insufficient time to support employee development was cited by 20.9% of respondents. A lack of adequate tools and processes was reported by 17.1% of the managers surveyed. Finally, low team engagement affected 15.6% of the participants.
Human resources professionals recognized these operational shortcomings clearly in the survey. Among HR respondents, 54.1% believed leaders only partially met the demands of their roles. Another 34.6% rated that leadership capability as low or very low. This indicates a broad consensus regarding the lack of adequate preparation.
The broader impact of unmanaged stress extends far beyond single organizations. The article reported that Brazil recorded more than 546,000 work absences related to mental disorders, described as the highest number of the previous decade using Social Security data. Globally, the International Labour Organization states that depression and anxiety result in more than 12 billion lost working days each year. Poor mental health clearly affects broader business performance and executive cognitive capacity.
This pattern aligns perfectly with international findings regarding management pressure. Coverage of DDI’s Global Leadership Forecast 2025 noted that 71% of leaders reported significantly higher stress after entering their current role. Of those experiencing increased stress, 54% were concerned about burnout. Furthermore, 40% had considered leaving leadership altogether.
We must clearly define the limitations of these specific findings. The 70% figure represents a survey finding about subjective intentions and feelings. It does not prove that 70% of Brazilian leaders will resign or meet a clinical definition of burnout. The respondents simply reported considering a departure because of perceived mental health impacts.
Furthermore, the reported conditions do not constitute formal clinical diagnoses. Stress, exhaustion, and mental fatigue are serious symptoms that require professional attention. However, they are distinct from diagnosed psychological disorders or illnesses. We should avoid treating these survey results as definitive psychiatric epidemiology.
The survey does not establish a direct causal link between leadership roles and mental illness. It identifies correlations between high pressure, inadequate preparation, and reported exhaustion. The study does not prove that management inherently damages your health. Additionally, the research does not measure executive decision accuracy or financial outcomes directly.
Finally, we must consider the source of the primary data used here. Conquer In Company is an organization actively involved in corporate training. These findings represent proprietary survey data rather than an independent academic study. Readers should view the results as a strong indicator of workplace friction rather than absolute proof.
The conversation around executive pressure is shifting from personal endurance to structural design. Organizations are beginning to understand that effective leadership requires protected cognitive capacity. We expect to see a growing emphasis on measurable support systems for managers. Companies will likely track internal management transfers, span of control, and after hours workload more rigorously.
Future research will need to isolate the variables between workload and biological recovery. We anticipate more rigorous clinical trials measuring how specific role demands affect objective markers of health. This data will help organizations separate genuine professional support from mere employee surveillance. Mental health initiatives must reduce avoidable ambiguity rather than monitor whether leaders appear sufficiently positive.
Companies that invest in systematic leadership preparation will gain a distinct competitive advantage. Executive roles will always involve intense pressure and complex decision making. The goal is to ensure that this pressure remains manageable and sustainable over time. By focusing on role clarity and physiological recovery, organizations can protect their most valuable talent for the long term.
The most successful founders will approach this challenge as an engineering problem. They will map the exact operational loads placed on their management teams rather than hoping for infinite executive resilience. Ultimately, treating leadership as a structured capability will replace the outdated expectation of permanent availability. This shift will create more resilient organizations capable of sustained performance.
Stay connected for research and practical guidance on executive performance, energy, focus, sleep, recovery and longevity. Ideas built for people who want to stay sharp, capable and effective for the long run.
Build habits and systems that support clear thinking, steady energy and long term capacity throughout a demanding career.
explore the Blog
