Sustaining headship is no longer just a personal challenge—it’s a collective one. As the role grows more complex and the pressures more persistent, we must ask forward-looking questions about who will want to do this work in the years ahead, what must change, and what systems and supports will create a lasting pipeline and pathway.
This article appeared as "Distress Signals” in the Summer 2026 issue of Independent School.
Headship has always been demanding work. Independent school heads carry strategic, operational, relational, and symbolic responsibilities—all at once—while holding mission and long-term sustainability at the center of every decision. But in recent years, the job has grown heavier. The pressures facing heads today are not only greater in number but more intense, more persistent, and they’re not likely to subside.
New NAIS data suggest that many heads are carrying these responsibilities under conditions of sustained strain. While commitment to schools and students remains strong, elevated stress and emotional exhaustion are now common features of the role, particularly for some groups of leaders. These findings raise important questions about leadership sustainability and about how schools and boards support heads over time.
In December 2025, NAIS conducted a national survey focused on head well-being and burnout. Nearly 600 heads of school responded, representing approximately a 33% response rate. Their responses offer a candid snapshot of how heads are experiencing their work, what is contributing to stress, and what they believe is necessary to remain effective and healthy in the role.
Stress Is High—and Persistent
Nearly four in 10 heads (39%) reported experiencing very high levels of stress, rating their current stress between 8 and 10 on a 10-point scale. Furthermore, on the same scale, the average stress level was 6.8 while the median was 7. This level of stress is striking not only for its intensity but for how widespread it is. For many heads, high stress is not limited to moments of crisis or transition; it has become a persistent condition of the job.
Further analysis shows that stress is not experienced uniformly. Female heads were more likely than male heads to report high stress (44% compared with 34%), as were heads of color compared with non-Hispanic white heads (46% versus 38%). Heads with five years or fewer in their current role also reported slightly higher stress than those with longer tenure (40% versus 37%). Moreover, heads at smaller schools were more likely to report high stress, with 46% of those at schools enrolling under 301 students rating their stress as 8 or higher, compared to about one-third of those at larger schools.
These differences suggest that stress is shaped not only by workload but also by role expectations, visibility, and context. Newer heads are often navigating steep learning curves while working to establish credibility and trust. Heads from historically underrepresented groups may be carrying additional emotional labor alongside leadership responsibilities. Heads at small schools may be wearing more “hats” than their peers at larger schools, often while juggling tighter resources. In these contexts, stress reflects not just the demands of the role but the conditions under which it is performed.
When asked to compare their current stress levels with previous years, 34% of heads reported higher stress, while 38% said it was about the same. Taken together, these responses suggest that for many heads experiencing elevated stress, it is ongoing and sustained—not a one-off bad week.
Demographic patterns again reveal differences. Heads of color were more likely to report prolonged stress, with nearly half saying their stress levels were about the same as in previous years and almost one-third reporting much higher stress. Heads at schools enrolling under 301 students also reported higher stress this year (39%), compared with 30% of heads at larger schools. These findings suggest that many heads—particularly heads of color and those at smaller schools—have been navigating elevated pressure over an extended period rather than experiencing short-term spikes.
Sustained stress poses particular risks for leadership effectiveness and well-being. When pressure does not recede, even highly capable leaders may struggle to recover fully between challenges, increasing the likelihood of exhaustion and burnout.
Emotional Exhaustion as a Warning
Beyond stress alone, emotional exhaustion emerged as a significant concern. Nearly half of heads (46%) reported feeling emotionally exhausted at work daily or several times a week; only 1% said they never felt emotional exhaustion.
Rates of exhaustion were notably higher among certain groups. Female heads were more likely than male heads to report frequent exhaustion (51% versus 41%), as were heads of color compared with heads of school who are white (54% versus 44%) and heads with five or fewer years in their current role (51%, compared with 41% of longer-serving heads). Exhaustion was especially common at smaller schools: 58% of heads at schools enrolling under 301 students reported frequent stress, compared with about 35% of heads at larger schools.
Emotional exhaustion reflects more than fatigue; it signals depletion. Leaders experiencing exhaustion at this frequency may find it harder to sustain empathy, make thoughtful decisions, or remain fully engaged over time. It’s important to note that emotional exhaustion does not imply disengagement or lack of commitment. Rather, it often reflects the cost of sustained care and responsibility in a demanding environment.
For newer heads and heads from underrepresented groups, emotional exhaustion may be compounded by heightened visibility, scrutiny, and the pressure to continually prove themselves—often while leading through complex institutional challenges.
What’s Driving the Stress
To better understand what contributes to stress, the data point to several dominant factors. Staff management and parent-related issues emerged as the leading sources of stress, followed by enrollment concerns, budget constraints, and administrative workload.
These aren’t just common complaints. Regression analysis found that these factors—except for parent- and student-related issues—were statistically significant predictors of stress. Heads who reported these issues tended to score roughly one-third to two-thirds of a point higher on the 10-point stress scale, depending on the factor. The number of stressors mattered, too: For every additional factor selected (out of 12 possible), a head’s stress score increased by about 6%.
While these factors affect most heads, patterns vary across groups. Female heads were more likely to cite enrollment concerns, while heads of color were more likely to cite budget constraints; both groups were also more likely than male heads and white heads to identify administrative workload as a stress factor. Heads with five or fewer years at their school were especially likely to identify enrollment and budget challenges as significant stressors. At smaller schools (under 301 students), heads most often selected enrollment concerns, while heads at larger schools (501 or more students) more frequently selected parent-related issues.
These patterns underscore the fact that stress is shaped not only by workload but by the nature of the challenges heads face. Managing people—staff, trustees, and parents alike—demands significant emotional labor, time, and judgment, particularly in environments marked by staffing shortages, financial pressure, and heightened family expectations.
Time, Workload, and Uneven Recovery
Time demands further intensify stress: Nearly 60% of heads reported working more than 10 hours outside of the school day each week, with almost one-third logging more than 15 additional hours.
Despite this workload, most heads reported that they rarely or never take time off for personal well-being or mental health beyond their contracted paid time off. Only a small minority (4%) said they regularly take such time.
While the data do not disaggregate time-off patterns by subgroup, the combination of long hours with higher stress and exhaustion among female heads, heads of color, and newer heads raises important questions about who has access to recovery—and who feels able to take it. For some leaders, particularly those early in their tenure or those who feel heightened pressure to demonstrate commitment, taking time to rest and restore may feel risky or even undeserved.
Commitment Despite the Strain
Despite elevated stress and emotional exhaustion, most heads reported feeling at least somewhat supported by their boards, with nearly half saying they felt supported and another 40% felt somewhat supported. More than half of the heads (56%) also indicated that they had not considered leaving their role because of stress or burnout in the past year.
This finding points to a central paradox of headship today. Heads remain deeply committed to their schools, students, and communities, even as the role takes a significant personal toll. That commitment often sustains leaders through difficult periods, but it can also obscure the underlying strain.
Perceptions of board support vary by experience. Among heads with five or fewer years at their schools, only 43% reported feeling supported by their board, though another 45% felt somewhat supported. These findings suggest that newer heads may need more explicit, proactive forms of support as they navigate the early years of headship, when stress and exhaustion are often highest.
Perceived board support also varies by school size. It is lowest among heads at schools enrolling fewer than 201 students, with 15% feeling unsupported. That figure drops to just 6% at schools enrolling 501–700 students but rises to 12% for heads at schools with 701 or more students. Overall, heads at larger schools are more likely to have supportive boards—about 54% of heads at schools with more than 300 students felt supported, compared with about 42% of heads at schools with 300 or fewer students.
What Heads Say Helps
In the survey, heads were asked to share how they cope with stress and work to prevent burnout. Their responses point to a wide range of strategies, many emphasizing intentionality, boundaries, and connection. Heads most frequently highlighted these strategies:
Personal health and wellness. Many heads care for their physical and mental health through exercise, proper sleep, good nutrition, and therapy or regular mindfulness. These practices help heads manage stress and maintain energy, particularly when demands are high.
Boundaries and time protection. Heads frequently cited boundary-setting strategies, such as limiting night and weekend email, creating “unplugged” windows, and intentionally protecting time away from work. Some removed work email from personal devices or took sabbaticals.
Work delegation and design. Building strong leadership teams and delegating responsibility were key strategies for heads working to create more sustainable leadership structures. Flexible work arrangements and calendar buffers (automatically scheduled breaks between meetings) also helped break up long days.
Social and professional support. Heads described the value of connecting with other heads, working with coaches, and maintaining strong relationships with board chairs, trusted colleagues, and friends and family. These relationships help normalize challenges and provide perspective.
Purpose and mission reconnection. Remembering why the work matters helps counterbalance stress. Many heads described focusing on gratitude, grounding their work in the school’s mission, and making time to be with students.
Leisure time. Activities unrelated to school leadership, such as reading, music, creative pursuits, time in nature, and other hobbies, provide mental and emotional restoration that helps sustain leaders over time.
Together, these strategies suggest that heads are actively working to sustain themselves—even when conditions are far from ideal.
From Individual Strategies to Shared Responsibility
While individual coping strategies matter, burnout is not solely an individual issue. Many of the strategies heads rely on depend on organizational cultures and governance practices that respect boundaries, normalize rest, and support sustainable leadership. This kind of support can be especially critical for female heads, heads of color, and heads early in their tenure—groups more likely to report higher stress and exhaustion but less likely to step back or ask for support.
Clear governance boundaries, realistic expectations, and visible board support can significantly reduce stress, particularly for newer heads, while proactive check-ins and attention to workload can help prevent stress from tipping into burnout. Normalizing rest and recovery for heads—rather than treating them as impossibilities with an inherently demanding role—signals that well-being is a legitimate leadership concern and essential to a job well-done.
Go Deeper
Get a more complete picture of headship longevity in the recent Independent Ideas blog post, “The State of Head Turnover,” by Margaret Anne Rowe, and the NAIS Snapshot, “Understanding Head of School Burnout,” which includes an interactive dashboard to explore the findings further.