Stress is serious business. Work-related stress remains one of the largest causes of employee absenteeism. The WHO estimates it costs US businesses $300bn a year. In the UK, meanwhile, employees are reported to be calling support lines in record numbers.
For senior executives, the effects are often played out in public. The stress-testing of European banks, for instance, has coincided with a number of stressed-out banking executives taking some time out. First it was the CEO of Lloyds in 2011, then Akzo Nobel in 2012, followed by Barclays’ head of compliance in 2013—the former boss of the UK banking regulator.
In extreme cases, stress can be overwhelming. Zurich’s late CFO cited “undue pressure” from his boss in his suicide note, although everyone at the company was later cleared of any wrongdoing.
To find out what impact the current business environment is having on senior management, The Economist Intelligence Unit has undertaken an “Executive Stress Test”. This short three-question survey asks senior executives around the world to rate their current stress-levels.
The initial results, based on a survey conducted at the end of Q2 (June), show that stress levels are on the up for more than one-third (37%) of executives. Around one-in-six (16%) respondents report feeling “very stressed” at the moment (at least 8 on a scale of 0 to 10). As the charts show, North American executives report the highest stress levels across the world.
The top three causes of work-related stress, according to the survey, are an upcoming deadline, such as a big decision, meeting or presentation; overstretched resources; and disappointing company results. However, executives at larger companies (with annual revenues above $500m) put overstretched resources top.
We will be repeating this survey on a regular basis so that we can track stress levels among global executives throughout the year. In the meantime, any executive sitting in the office at the start of August should seriously consider taking a break.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited (EIU) or any other member of The Economist Group. The Economist Group (including the EIU) cannot accept any responsibility or liability for reliance by any person on this article or any of the information, opinions or conclusions set out in the article.
