Nearly one in five leaders frequently feel “used up”, while just 9% are fully engaged and only 14% feel very prepared to use emerging technologies successfully, reveals global study.
Most leaders do not feel ready to navigate the pace of change now reshaping organisations, as mounting pressure from AI, restructuring, skills anxiety and low trust threatens both performance and retention. The latest Global Leadership Forecast 2027 from global leadership research and consulting firm DDI finds just 17% of leaders feel confident anticipating and reacting to change – a figure that has barely moved since 2025.
The consequences extend beyond leadership confidence. Organisations with effective change leadership are 2.4 times more likely to meet or exceed their financial targets, while leaders who do not feel prepared for change are only around a third as likely to remain productive during setbacks.
At the same time, 19% of leaders frequently feel “used up”, yet relatively few are leaving their roles. The result is a growing risk that organisations may retain leaders who are physically present but increasingly exhausted, disengaged or underprepared for the demands being placed on them.
PRESSURES ON LEADERS ARE COMPOUNDING
The research draws on responses from 11,395 leaders and 2,519 HR professionals across more than 1,900 organisations, 50+ countries and 24 industry sectors. It is the 12th edition of DDI’s Global Leadership Forecast since 1999.
“The pressures on leaders are compounding. Recurring restructuring is reshaping leaders’ roles, and AI is redefining how their work gets done,” said Rosey Rhyne, Manager of DDI’s Center for Analytics and Behavioral Research. These shifts are rapid and deeply personal, and many leaders are struggling to maintain the trust and engagement they need to lead their teams through disruption. The cracks show up first at the front line, where these pressures reinforce each other.”
That combination of restructuring, technology change and rising expectations is becoming a familiar theme across the workplace. Recent research found seven in 10 workers feel more productive with AI, yet workloads are not falling.
For leaders, the challenge may be even greater because they are expected not only to use new tools themselves, but also to guide employees through the wider organisational disruption those tools create.
AI PRODUCTIVITY IS RISING FASTER THAN AI READINESS
AI is already delivering tangible benefits for leaders. Some 81% report productivity gains from AI, while 75% say it has improved the quality of their work. Yet only 14% feel very prepared to use emerging technologies successfully.
Perhaps more concerning, just 18% say leaders check the quality of AI-generated output. That gap between adoption and readiness closely echoes wider research covered on Fair Play Talks. Four in 10 US workers using AI have admitted accepting answers they suspected were wrong, while only a minority said their organisation had a written rule requiring verification. Similarly, one in four executives said AI errors had already reached boards or external audiences, despite high levels of confidence in AI-generated output. The message is consistent: organisations are capturing benefits from AI faster than their governance, skills and verification practices are maturing.
LEADERS FEAR THEIR SKILLS ARE BECOMING OBSOLETE
The DDI study also finds widespread concern about the future value of leadership skills. Some 87% of leaders express at least some concern that their skills are becoming obsolete. That anxiety has a direct retention consequence.
Leaders worried about their skills becoming outdated are 5.1 times more likely to report a definite intention to leave their organisation. The finding reflects a broader shift in what leadership now requires.
Recent research found six in 10 workers worry AI is weakening their skills, while critical thinking, judgement and the ability to challenge AI outputs are becoming increasingly important. Leaders therefore face a dual pressure: keeping pace with new technology while also preserving the human capabilities required to use it responsibly.
TRUST IS LOWEST WHERE EXECUTION HAPPENS
The trust findings are particularly stark. Among individual contributors, just 21% trust senior leaders, while only 25% trust their immediate manager. That matters because strategy only becomes meaningful when employees believe in the people responsible for turning it into action.
The study found leaders who trust senior leadership are 5.9 times more likely to say leadership decisions translate into action. Low trust can therefore create a practical execution problem, not merely an engagement issue.
Organisations may announce change programmes, AI strategies or restructuring plans, but implementation can falter if employees do not trust the people leading them. That links closely to wider concerns around workplace culture.
Recent research found one in three CEOs now describe their own workplace culture as toxic, underlining how leadership credibility and employee experience are increasingly intertwined.
DISENGAGED, DEPLETED & DISTRACTED LEADERS
Leader engagement is another warning sign. Only 9% of leaders are fully engaged, while 50% sit in what DDI describes as a “lukewarm” middle. That means many leaders have not disengaged entirely, but they are not operating at full energy or commitment either.
The performance implications are significant. Fully engaged leaders are 8.8 times more likely to consistently bring out the best in their team members. This suggests that leader engagement is not simply about individual wellbeing. It has a direct effect on the people they manage. A leader who is depleted, distracted or emotionally detached may struggle to create motivation, clarity and confidence within their team.
Nearly one in five leaders (19%) say they frequently feel “used up”. Yet relatively few appear to be exiting leadership roles. That creates a quieter organisational risk. Burnout does not always result in immediate resignation.
Some leaders stay while reducing discretionary effort, avoiding difficult decisions, disengaging emotionally or becoming less effective at supporting others. That can be harder for organisations to detect than outright turnover. It also reinforces the need to treat leadership wellbeing as a performance issue rather than simply a personal resilience challenge.
CHANGE READINESS AND FINANCIAL IMPACT
The DDI findings connect leadership capability directly to financial performance. Organisations with effective change leadership are 2.4 times more likely to meet or exceed their financial targets. That suggests change capability is not a “soft” leadership skill.
It is increasingly central to business execution. In an environment where organisations are simultaneously managing AI adoption, restructuring, workforce transformation and economic uncertainty, leaders who can navigate ambiguity without losing trust or engagement become a competitive advantage.
WHAT EMPLOYERS SHOULD DO
The findings suggest organisations need to rethink how much pressure they place on leaders without giving them the time and capability to adapt. Employers should:
- build change leadership capability before major transformation begins;
- provide structured development around AI, emerging technology and decision-making;
- give leaders time to learn rather than expecting them to upskill entirely on top of existing workloads;
- measure leader engagement separately from broader employee engagement;
- review workload, spans of control and role clarity;
- strengthen trust through consistent communication and follow-through;
- train leaders to challenge and verify AI outputs;
- create peer support and coaching for managers dealing with sustained change;
- avoid treating resilience as a substitute for fixing unsustainable working conditions; and
- identify where frontline managers are absorbing the greatest pressure.
LEADERS NEED TIME TO BUILD NEW CAPABILITIES
That point is especially important. Organisations often respond to change by demanding more speed. But if leaders are already depleted, adding training, transformation and AI adoption on top of existing responsibilities can deepen the problem rather than solve it. Building leadership capability may therefore require creating more capacity, not simply adding more content.
DDI argues that the effects of leadership strain often emerge first at frontline level. Frontline managers sit closest to employees while also absorbing pressure from senior leadership. They are expected to communicate change, answer difficult questions, maintain morale, deliver performance and increasingly help employees adapt to AI.
That makes them particularly vulnerable to overload. If they are unsupported, trust can deteriorate quickly. And because employees interact with immediate managers far more often than with senior executives, weak frontline leadership can undermine even well-designed transformation strategies.
AI GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP
The findings also suggest that AI governance can no longer sit entirely with IT or risk teams. If leaders are using AI extensively but only 18% are checking output quality, then leadership development itself needs to include AI judgement. That means helping leaders understand:
- when AI outputs require verification;
- where bias or hallucination may create risk;
- when human judgement should override automated recommendations;
- how to communicate AI-related decisions to employees; and
- how to use AI without weakening team skills or accountability.
This aligns with research showing organisations with stronger trustworthy AI practices are far more likely to achieve strong returns. The stronger message is that responsible AI and effective leadership are becoming increasingly difficult to separate.
LEADERSHIP CAPACITY: THE HIDDEN RISK
The Global Leadership Forecast paints a picture of leaders being asked to do more while feeling less prepared. They are using AI and seeing benefits from it. But many do not feel ready for emerging technology.
They are expected to guide people through repeated change. But only 17% feel confident doing so. They remain in their jobs. But nearly one in five frequently feel “used up”. And they are expected to maintain trust and engagement while employee confidence in leaders remains low.
The risk is not simply that leaders leave. It is that organisations retain leaders who no longer have the capacity, confidence or trust required to perform at their best. In a workplace defined by disruption, that may be one of the most important leadership risks organisations need to address.
RELATED ARTICLES
Six in 10 employees worry AI is weakening their skills, while 43% say they get the blame when AI goes wrong, new global research reveals.
More than four in 10 US workers who use AI at work have knowingly accepted an AI-generated answer they suspected was wrong because it was faster or sounded convincing, according to new research.
Seven in 10 employees say AI is making them more productive, yet workloads remain virtually unchanged, reveals new research.
A third of CEOs now describe their own workplace culture as toxic, while 40% of employees say the same, new research reveals.
Organisations with strong AI governance, data quality, explainability and accountability are 15 times more likely to report strong returns from artificial intelligence investments, according to new global research.
Two-thirds say leaders either know and do nothing or take part directly, while nearly nine in 10 workers remain severely affected by a toxic workplace more than two years after leaving, according to new research.
