CEO loneliness: who to talk to when you can’t share all your concerns

The loneliness of the role is not the same as having no friends

A CEO spends the day in meetings, but in the evening is left alone with the question of whether the company will cope with losing its main contract. At work, they don’t want to spread alarm. At home, they can’t reveal the details of the negotiations. The supervisory board expects a recommendation, and the financial adviser sees only part of the problem. This situation does not prove that the leader is emotionally lonely in every area of life. Rather, it reveals a specific lack of someone with whom they can openly test their own reasoning, without any jockeying for position. In 2024, Lam and colleagues analysed 71 empirical studies and stressed that the literature mixes several meanings of leader loneliness, which makes it easy to draw exaggerated conclusions. There are no grounds for attributing the same difficulty to every CEO. It is, however, worth treating the lack of a safe exchange of ideas as a risk that comes with the role – one that can be deliberately reduced.

Why it’s hard to tell your direct reports “I’m afraid I might be wrong”

When a leader talks about their worries, listeners may understand their words differently. One person will take them as an invitation to look for solutions, another as a sign that redundancies are coming, a third as a signal that the board has no plan. A CEO also has real confidentiality obligations – for instance, in relation to forthcoming negotiations or information covered by trade secrecy. So the problem is not the lack of complete openness in itself. The problem begins when, for fear of how others will react, the leader doesn’t let anyone challenge their assumptions. A qualitative study by Zumaeta, based on interviews with senior executives, described tensions between the role and the person, and between the need for closeness and professional distance. It is not a representative survey of all CEOs, but it is a useful map of the tensions that can arise. A trusted circle of conversation partners lets you share your doubts without disclosing every piece of confidential information to the team.

Choose different people to talk to about decisions, relationships and overload

There is no single person who should play every role. Strategy and risk can be discussed with an independent board member, an experienced entrepreneur or a mentor who is not party to the transaction. For conflicts on the board, an adviser who works with leadership teams can help, provided they understand the limits of confidentiality. Prolonged overload and sleep problems are worth discussing with a doctor or psychologist, depending on the problem. The selection criterion is not “Who will always understand me?” but “Who can challenge my assumptions without using the information against me?” It is worth agreeing in advance on confidentiality, conflicts of interest and the kind of support you expect. A conversation with a fellow CEO can lighten the load, but it should not replace having the figures and risks checked by people with expertise in the relevant field. A good conversation partner doesn’t just reassure you. They help you see alternative scenarios.

Prepare two messages: one for thinking, the other for action

A private conversation might sound like this: “I don’t know whether acquiring this company is sensible. I’m worried about two scenarios and I’d like to check what I’m missing.” This is the moment for open analysis, not for pretending to be certain. A conversation with the team has a different purpose: to give people the knowledge they need to do their work and to let them ask questions. Instead of “Everything will be great” or “I have no idea what’s going to happen to us”, it is better to say: “Negotiations are ongoing. We don’t know the outcome today. We’re keeping our current priorities, and we’ll give you an update next Thursday.” A message like this doesn’t remove emotions, but it limits the room for speculation. If the risk calls for action now, you also need to name the contingent decision: what we will do under scenario A, and what under scenario B. Sticking to the facts inspires more trust than pretending to be unshakeable.

Making decisions independently does not mean reasoning in isolation

The top job leaves responsibility for the choice with the CEO, but it doesn’t require them to analyse the problem in isolation. Before an important decision, it is worth running three separate tests. First, the data test: which information has been confirmed, what is missing and who can provide it? Second, the interpretation test: what other explanation of the same facts is possible? Third, the consequences test: who will bear the cost of the decision, and how will we know it needs correcting? A good exercise is to appoint one person to present the strongest counter-argument, with no penalty for disagreeing. This is not about playing “devil’s advocate” for show. It is about creating conditions in which even the person with the most power receives honest information. In the final message, the CEO can take responsibility without pretending to be infallible.

When the need for support becomes ordinary management practice

It is best to find a confidential conversation partner before a crisis arrives. You can arrange a regular monthly conversation about decisions that turned out differently than expected and the assumptions for the next quarter. Before each meeting, it is worth writing down three questions that don’t yet have answers, and one thing that could undermine the current plan. After the meeting, write down not only the advice but also what needs to be checked. Separately, look after relationships outside the company in which you don’t have to play the role of CEO. There is no contradiction between this and professional responsibility. Research on loneliness at work – including by Ozcelik and Barsade – points to its link with how employees function, but does not prove there is one universal remedy for CEOs. In practice, what counts is a network of varied relationships and the chance to reflect regularly and honestly.

A CEO doesn’t have to disclose every concern in order to make decisions with input from other people. They need a confidential space to test their assumptions, and clear, accurate communication with the team. What matters is distinguishing the conversation that helps them think from the message that enables employees to act.

How Empatyzer helps a CEO prepare for conversations under uncertainty

A CEO learns that a major client may end the relationship. He doesn’t want to burden the team with unverified scenarios, but speaking as if everything were certain feels dishonest to him. Before talking to the board or a trusted adviser, he describes to Em the facts, the missing data and three concerns he cannot yet put into precise words. Em helps him separate forecasts from confirmed information and suggests questions worth putting to an independent conversation partner. He can then rehearse a short address to the team: what we know, which activities are continuing and when people will get the next update. If he uses his own Empatyzer diagnosis, he can reflect on whether pressure strengthens his tendency towards excessive control, hasty announcements or putting off a difficult conversation. Em will help him prepare answers to awkward questions without making promises he cannot keep. Communication micro-lessons help him practise this way of working outside a crisis too. As a result, the CEO doesn’t have to weigh up every possible scenario alone – even though the responsibility for the decision is still his.