Private Storms:
When Leadership Wavers,
the Company Shakes

Private crises on senior exec­u­tive level and in the board­room are like hair­line cracks in a build­ing’s struc­ture: invis­i­ble, but with seri­ous conse­quences. Today we present four levers compa­nies can use to take struc­tur­al precautions.

Private crises among exec­u­tives are among the quiet but conse­quen­tial risks facing modern organ­i­sa­tions. While oper­a­tional or market crises are usual­ly addressed clear­ly, person­al stress­es – divorce, illness, fami­ly commit­ments or loss – often go unno­ticed. What happens when the stabil­i­ty of those who are supposed to provide support for others is shak­en? And who catch­es the manag­er when they them­selves need support?

Current data says: 49% of German exec­u­tives cite their own resilience and perfor­mance as their great­est chal­lenge, while 61.6% report exhaus­tion (New Work SE, 2025). Inter­na­tion­al­ly, the pres­sure has increased: 71% see high­er stress levels since taking on their role; 40% of those under severe stress are consid­er­ing resign­ing (DDI, 2025). This signals risks in lead­er­ship pipelines.

What does this say about our corpo­rate cultures? 

One thing is clear: mental stabil­i­ty has a direct impact on culture, perfor­mance and loyal­ty. Person­al stress leads to cogni­tive over­load, emotion­al distance and inde­ci­sive­ness – with conse­quences for trust, team dynam­ics and psycho­log­i­cal safety.

Today’s episode of our ‘Lead­er­ship­Im­pulse’ series in the Valdivia News­room deals with these issues and ways of deal­ing with private crises at the high­est level. Let’s conscious­ly embrace this topic.

When private matters influ­ence lead­er­ship skills

Private crises have an impact on sever­al levels. Emotion­al stress narrows one’s perspec­tive, promotes impul­sive­ness and makes it diffi­cult to make differ­en­ti­at­ed deci­sions. Lead­er­ship is reso­nance – tense lead­er­ship uncon­scious­ly trans­mits uncer­tain­ty to the envi­ron­ment. In prac­tice, this mani­fests itself in with­draw­al, control-orient­ed action­ism or impre­cise commu­ni­ca­tion – effects that weak­en trust and psycho­log­i­cal security.

The German Social Acci­dent Insur­ance (DGUV) empha­sis­es the proven connec­tion between lead­er­ship behav­iour, self-manage­ment and mental health: healthy lead­er­ship behav­iour strength­ens resources and stabil­i­ty; a lack of self-manage­ment weak­ens them – with long-term conse­quences for perfor­mance and loyalty.

The silent decline in performance

In Germany, recent surveys show an increase in psycho­log­i­cal stress at manage­ment level:

• Accord­ing to New Work SE (2025), 49% see mental stability/performance as the biggest chal­lenge; 61.6% report exhaus­tion, part­ly due to role diver­si­ty and constant stress.
• The Bertels­mann Foun­da­tion (2023) shows that high­er resilience scores corre­late with lower emotion­al exhaus­tion and high­er perfor­mance (RFI®).
• The BAuA study (2024) proves that a lack of self-manage­ment and social support increas­es the risk of mental illness and perfor­mance slumps by up to 45%.

This is also evident in data raised nternationally:

• 79% of those affect­ed in the UK report limit­ed abil­i­ty to work; 60% cite anxi­ety, depres­sion or stress (Rayden Solic­i­tors, 2021).
• 23% need­ed sick leave or unpaid leave, 39% expe­ri­enced declines in produc­tiv­i­ty, and 15% made more mistakes/accidents (Rayden, 2021).
• Almost one in ten managers left their compa­ny with­in a year of divorce; employ­ees in SMEs changed jobs four times more often than those in large compa­nies (Rayden, 2021).
• In the first six months after a divorce, produc­tiv­i­ty drops by an aver­age of 40%, and by a further 20% in the follow­ing year (marriageteam.org, 2024).
• In a US study, 44% report­ed measur­able impair­ments to their work/career/commitment as a result of divorce/separation (Univer­si­ty of Minneso­ta, 2024).

The conclu­sion of these find­ings is that person­al crises are not an indi­vid­ual fate, but a busi­ness risk. Where support, oppor­tu­ni­ties for discus­sion and preven­tion are lack­ing, entire systems become unbalanced.

What compa­nies can do

Organ­i­sa­tions are respond­ing with programmes that are low-thresh­old, destig­ma­tis­ing and manage­ment-orient­ed: Employ­ee Assis­tance Programmes (EAP), resilience train­ing, crisis coach­ing, flex­i­ble work­ing models and an open culture. These offer­ings protect the mental health of managers and ensure team stability.

1. Employ­ee Assis­tance Programs (EAP). Confi­den­tial coun­selling, guid­ance and rapid refer­ral reduce absen­teeism and increase the abil­i­ty to return to work. Typi­cal life crises (sepa­ra­tion, care­giv­ing, finan­cial issues) are addressed; compat­i­ble with occu­pa­tion­al health manage­ment structures.
2. Resilience train­ing. Focus on mind­ful­ness, emotion/impulse control, real­is­tic opti­mism, self-effi­ca­cy, goal orien­ta­tion – factors that corre­late with less exhaus­tion, less cyni­cism and high­er perfor­mance (RFI®/Bertelsmann study).
3. Coach­ing & crisis spar­ring. Protect­ed spaces for reflec­tion stabilise deci­sion-making qual­i­ty; regu­lar pulse checks and strength orien­ta­tion promote loyal­ty and security.
4. Struc­tur­al relief & culture. Tempo­rary flex­i­bil­i­ty, clear esca­la­tion paths, peer support and trans­par­ent commu­ni­ca­tion (‘error correc­tion rooms’) reduce control action­ism. The BAuA/S‑MGA empha­sis­es the long-term connec­tion between work­ing condi­tions, mental health and func­tion­al capac­i­ty – a strong argu­ment for preven­tive, culture-based solutions.

Our recent expert tip arti­cle on the topic of mental health takes an in-depth look at the topic with regards to all employ­ees. It shows how psycho­log­i­cal safe­ty and preven­tion form the basis of healthy leadership.

Making resilience measur­able: The Exec­u­tive FiRE model

The Exec­u­tive FiRE model (Factor of Indi­vid­ual Resilience and Effec­tive­ness) system­at­i­cal­ly and prac­ti­cal­ly measures resilience in managers. It summaris­es the results in a 28-page report, includ­ing recom­men­da­tions for action. Four core dimen­sions that can be developed:

1. Focus (clar­i­ty and prioritisation)
2. Inte­gra­tion (value and self-congruence)
3. Regen­er­a­tion (active ener­gy management)
4. Effec­tive­ness (deci­sive­ness under pressure)

The index combines person­al­i­ty diag­nos­tics with behav­iour­al factors and shows how lead­er­ship can main­tain stabil­i­ty and effec­tive­ness in chal­leng­ing phases.

The Bertels­mann study uses a differ­ent system: the RFI® (Shat­té) with seven factors (emotion control, impulse control, causal analy­sis, real­is­tic opti­mism, empa­thy, self-effi­ca­cy, goal orien­ta­tion). High­er resilience quotients corre­late nega­tive­ly with exhaustion/cynicism and posi­tive­ly with perfor­mance – resilience can be trained and has a protec­tive effect against burnout symptoms.

Specif­ic areas of action for boards and manage­ment teams

1. “First aid play­book” for life crises: A defined proce­dure for managers, HR and works coun­cils provides guid­ance in person­al crises: clar­i­fi­ca­tion of roles, commu­ni­ca­tion guide­lines, esca­la­tion chan­nels and quick access to exter­nal support (e.g. EAP). Goal: With­in 72 hours of becom­ing aware of the situ­a­tion, an initial profes­sion­al point of contact should be active – struc­tured, confi­den­tial, unbureaucratic.
2. Resilience screen­ing for top manage­ment: Stan­dard­ised screen­ing (e.g. Exec­u­tive FiRE Index) enables objec­tive assess­ment of indi­vid­ual and organ­i­sa­tion­al resilience; programmes can be designed on this basis – includ­ing re-measure­ment after six months. Goal: Visi­ble progress instead of symbol­ism – mental strength as a lived lead­er­ship reality.

3. Loyal­ty as a lead­er­ship KPI: Emotion­al loyal­ty is measur­able and should be part of target agree­ments. Key figures such as absen­teeism, turnover rates, acci­dent frequen­cy and produc­tiv­i­ty reflect the effects of lead­er­ship on culture and health. Goal: Measure lead­er­ship by its effec­tive­ness – those who build trust strength­en perfor­mance and loyalty.

4. Break­ing down taboos: Sepa­ra­tion, fami­ly, over­load: Address common stress drivers open­ly: Clear HR guide­lines, manag­er brief­in­gs, flex­i­ble time slots. Goal: Remove the taboo surround­ing private stress – and thus prevent resig­na­tion and perfor­mance risks, which current­ly affect almost one in ten managers after a separation.

These levers show that mental resilience and strength are not soft skills, but lead­er­ship respon­si­bil­i­ties. Making them visi­ble, measur­able and acces­si­ble protects the entire organisation.

Conclu­sion: Show­ing strength means stay­ing the course.

Private crises are part of life – even at manage­ment level. How you deal with them is crucial. Mental strength is not an add-on, but the foun­da­tion for stabil­i­ty, culture and perfor­mance. Systems such as the Exec­u­tive FiRE model provide a sound basis for making them measur­able and developable.

Beyond any diag­no­sis, the follow­ing applies:

Those who think of lead­er­ship as a support­ing struc­ture create forward-look­ing stat­ics: iden­ti­fy­ing cracks early on, assess­ing loads real­is­ti­cal­ly, and rein­forc­ing rein­force­ment in a target­ed manner.

This keeps the build­ing stable – even when the storm begins in private life.

Sources (Extract)

1. New Work SE (2025): How person­al crises threat­en corpo­rate success#
2. Bertels­mann Foun­da­tion (2023): Lead­er­ship, Health and Resilience (RFI®)
3. BAuA (2024): Mental health at work (S‑MGA)
4. DGUV: Brochure on lead­er­ship and mental health
5. DDI (2025): Glob­al Lead­er­ship Fore­cast 2025
6. Rayden Solic­i­tors (2021): Divorce in the Work­place UK Study
7. hellodivorce.com (2024)
8. marriageteam.org (2024)
9. Univer­si­ty of Minneso­ta (2024): Person­nel Psychol­o­gy – Effects of Divorce at Work#
10. Harvard Busi­ness Impact (2025): Glob­al Lead­er­ship Devel­op­ment Study

(Image source: istockphotos.com)