Thriving… or Just Ticking Boxes? Rethinking Leadership Wellbeing

The recent report by Gallup Workplace Report presents what it calls a paradox. Leaders, it says, are more likely to be “thriving” than non-leaders. And yet, those same leaders report higher levels of stress, anger, sadness, and loneliness in their day-to-day lives.

It is framed as a tension. A contradiction that somehow coexists.

I would argue it is neither.

It is an oxymoron.

Because we need to pause and ask a more fundamental question. What do we actually mean when we say someone is thriving?

Gallup’s definition leans heavily on life evaluation. Leaders are more likely to feel satisfied with their lives, to believe they are doing well, to see themselves as successful. On paper, this makes sense. Leadership roles tend to come with status, autonomy, financial reward, and a sense of influence. These are the markers our society has long associated with success. Tick enough of them, and the conclusion follows naturally. You must be thriving.

But this is where the flaw sits.

There is a difference between evaluating your life and experiencing it.

A person can look at their life and conclude that it is good, even enviable. And yet, their daily emotional reality can tell a very different story. If your days are characterised by heightened stress, emotional strain, isolation, and a persistent sense of pressure, then the claim of “thriving” becomes difficult to sustain.

What we are seeing in this report is not a paradox. It is a mismatch between external markers of success and internal lived experience.

In simpler terms, leaders are not necessarily thriving. They are succeeding according to a set of societal criteria that have never adequately accounted for human wellbeing.

Leadership, by its nature, carries weight. It demands decision-making under uncertainty, accountability for outcomes, and the navigation of complex interpersonal dynamics. There is also the less visible layer of emotional labour. Holding space for others, managing conflict, maintaining morale, and often absorbing the tension that sits within a team or organisation. These demands do not show up on a job description, but they are felt daily.

The body, unlike a performance review, does not respond to titles or perceived success. It responds to load. And when that load is consistently high, it manifests as the very emotions highlighted in the report. Stress. Fatigue. Irritability. Disconnection.

This is where the language of thriving becomes problematic. When we label this experience as thriving, we risk normalising a state of high-functioning depletion. We create a narrative in which success is expected to feel heavy, and where discomfort is interpreted as the natural cost of leadership rather than a signal that something is misaligned.

For women, this dynamic is often intensified.

Women in leadership are not only navigating the inherent demands of their roles but also a complex web of expectations around how they should lead. They are required to balance competence with warmth, authority with approachability, visibility with restraint. Many are also managing significant responsibilities outside of work, often carrying a disproportionate share of the mental and emotional labour within their households.

The result is a compounded load that is both professional and personal, visible and invisible.

And yet, when these women look at their lives, they too may conclude that they are thriving. The career is progressing. The milestones are being met. From the outside, everything appears to be working.

But thriving is not a performance. It is an experience.

It is found in the texture of everyday life. In whether there is space to breathe, to think clearly, to feel grounded rather than constantly activated. It is reflected in the presence of energy, not just output. In moments of genuine ease, not just the absence of crisis.

If leadership is associated with increased negative emotional states on a daily basis, then we must be willing to question the frameworks we are using to define success.

Perhaps the issue is not that leaders are experiencing a paradox. Perhaps the issue is that we have been using the wrong measures all along.

Until we redefine thriving to include not just how life looks, but how it feels to live it, we will continue to celebrate outcomes that quietly undermine the very people achieving them.

And that is not a paradox.

It is a problem. But who am I to take on the clever people at Gallup?

P.S: Feeling swamped by the juggle? If you’re a woman in leadership who wants to get back in control, let’s chat here.