It’s time to put wellbeing on the agenda, to prevent burnout in the boardroom

Posted on 10 Dec 2025

By Adele Stowe-Lindner

The Institute of Community Directors Australia trains over 22,000 people each year, which gives us the opportunity to hear from not-for-profit leaders about your concerns and what you would find useful in terms of NFP governance and leadership training and resources.

A year ago, you told us that succession planning on boards was complicated by your concerns for the wellbeing of existing board members.

We surveyed 575 board members so we could quantify what you were telling us, and the results formed the basis of our just-published Australian Community Boards Wellbeing Report.

We found that time commitments, governance complexity and interpersonal conflict were the leading sources of pressure on board members. Almost one in five board members reported feeling unsafe expressing dissenting views during board discussions, which is a signal of cultural challenges within governance structures.

Many leadership programs these days – our NFP Leadership Certificate among them – include a unit on wellbeing, because we know that when leaders burn out they are at risk of breaking things. Leaders’ wellbeing is important. The problem is, while it is the board’s responsibility to oversee the wellbeing of the CEO, and it is the CEO’s responsibility to oversee the wellbeing of staff, who takes responsibility for the wellbeing of the board?

In our survey, we asked respondents whether their board had explicit practices or policies to support the wellbeing of its members. Only around one in six (16 per cent) reported having a wellbeing strategy, and just 13 per cent said wellbeing was a standing agenda item.

Amid this failure to cater for the wellbeing of board members, about two-thirds of board members have considered stepping down because of stress and overwhelm. Directors are often stretched for time, are expected to be across incredibly complex and demanding issues, and can be forced to coped with personal clashes with other board members. The tension between community leaders’ incredible commitment to their causes (86 per cent feel aligned with their organisation’s mission) and the pressure they’re feeling lies at the heart of this study.

"The problem is, while it is the board’s responsibility to oversee the wellbeing of the CEO, and it is the CEO’s responsibility to oversee the wellbeing of staff, who takes responsibility for the wellbeing of the board?"

Adele Stowe-Lindner

One respondent said: “The problem is not for the board or organisation to fix. The problem is a function of a society that seems not to value volunteerism and a bunch of governments who keep increasing complexity (and I feel legal liability) to the extent that I intend to get out of such positions as soon as I can.”

Strong governance starts with people who are properly supported to undertake their roles and well connected to their stakeholders. Boards that take the time to invest in their own wellbeing create the conditions for thoughtful, inclusive and future-focused decision-making that has a positive impact on the organisation, including its staff, members and beneficiaries. Good governance depends on people who can bring their best selves to the boardroom table.

The alternative is a dysfunctional organisation with problems starting at the top. As the saying goes, “The fish rots from the head.”

Investing in people might take different forms on different boards. On one, it might mean putting extra effort into recruitment of a diverse range of board members. This, together with the behaviour that supports diversity, can ensure all board members feel comfortable to speak up when they have something to say, especially when they disagree. An organisation like this is less likely to make errors of judgement or experience blind spots.

A different type of board might invest in technology that will save time for board members working through unwieldy packs of board papers.

Yet another might seek training – perhaps training for the chair in compiling a workable agenda and managing discussions so that meetings end on time, or financial literacy training for the treasurer so that their reports make more sense to the rest of the group.

In the future, perhaps boards will be populated by our AI proxies. But in the meantime, humans can and must do what AI agents cannot: empathise, collaborate, listen deeply, create, intuit, and make values-based decisions.

By embedding wellbeing in board culture, we can strengthen our organisations as well as model the kind of compassionate, sustainable leadership our communities deserve.

The Australian Community Boards Wellbeing Report includes a series of recommendations for boards, and we plan to repeat the study annually.