Only 18 per cent of leaders scored high in stress tolerance, raising questions about leadership readiness as organizations navigate sustained economic uncertainty, rapid technological change and rising employee expectations, according to a new report from SuccessFinder.
The findings are drawn from more than 17,000 leadership assessments conducted across industries and leadership levels over a 12-month period. While leadership capability remains widespread, with leadership itself identified as a high-prevalence trait among 96 per cent of leaders, several behaviours that organizations increasingly cite as critical are far less common.
Read: People managers leaving role due to lack of fulfilment, mental-health issues: survey
Stress tolerance emerged as the most pronounced gap, with nearly four in 10 leaders scoring low. Flexibility, which reflects a leader’s ability to adapt their approach as circumstances change, also remains limited, despite being identified as one of the most in-demand leadership traits.
Carolyn Hass, chief operating officer at SuccessFinder, notes these are the qualities that “set the foundation for everything else. They’re rarer than people think, but they’re also what leaders are going to need as things continue to change.”
The pressure is intensifying as organizations accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence and other digital tools. While AI is often positioned as a productivity solution, it also raises the stakes for leaders who must make faster decisions, interpret data responsibly and guide teams through constant change. Yet the report shows flexibility remains scarce among leaders, creating a disconnect between how quickly organizations are adopting new technologies and how prepared leaders are to manage their impact on people and workflows.
“AI is moving faster than most leadership models were designed for,” says Hass. “It’s not just about technical adoption. Leaders need the stress tolerance and flexibility to make judgment calls, course-correct quickly and support teams through uncertainty. Without those behaviours, technology can amplify pressure instead of easing it.”
Those gaps exist against a broader backdrop of strain. The report points to external data which found 71 per cent of middle managers experience feelings of overwhelm, stress or burnout at work, rising to roughly 75 per cent among younger managers, employees in large organizations and those working in hybrid environments. In that context, relying on traditional leadership development models is increasingly risky.
Rather than focusing on broad, generic skill-building, Hass says organizations need to rethink how they invest in leadership capability. “Don’t focus too much on building basic leadership skills or a one-size-fits-all leadership model. The return on investment isn’t there anymore. Leadership is changing too quickly.”
Other traits often assumed to be embedded in leadership roles also appeared less prevalent. Innovation and profit awareness scored lower across the overall leadership sample while delegation, a key lever for managing workload and developing future leaders, ranked highly among fewer than three in 10 leaders.
“If you don’t know what behaviours you actually need and you don’t measure whether you have them, you end up overinvesting in areas where leaders are already strong,” adds Hass. “And you still have gaps.”
The report also found leadership traits shift as individuals move into more senior roles. While flexibility and self-expression tend to increase at higher levels, empathy and determination decline, suggesting a stronger results orientation that may come at the expense of resilience and connection with teams.
Differences were also evident between current leaders and those earlier in their careers. Emerging leaders were more comfortable with self-expression but scored lower on empathy, camaraderie and determination, raising concerns about the future leadership pipeline.
Read: People managers leaving role due to lack of fulfilment, mental-health issues: survey
Ultimately, strengthening leadership readiness requires clarity and measurement, not more programming. “If you can’t measure the gap, you can’t build a program that actually addresses it,” says Hass. “That’s how you build a more resilient organization over time.”