July 2026
Mental health has become a central topic in public sector workforce discussions. But the focus often remains on frontline employees. Municipal executives—those responsible for leading agencies, managing budgets and making high-stakes decisions—are frequently left out of organizational well-being strategies. This oversight creates a silent crisis: leaders who are struggling with burnout and mental health strain, yet feel unable or unsafe to address it openly.
Evidence of executive burnout
Recent research underscores that government employees experience higher levels of burnout than their private sector counterparts. According to a Boston Consulting Group analysis, 65% of government workers report feeling burned-out, compared to 44% in the private sector. While these statistics are often discussed in relation to frontline staff, executives and managers operate in the same environment of heavy workload, political pressure and emotional demand. Their accountability for high-stakes decisions only compounds these stressors.
A study by Eagle Hill Consulting found that burnout among government employees is tied to higher turnover and challenges in retaining talent, which can erode institutional memory and weaken service quality. For executives, chronic stress can lead to decision fatigue, reduced creativity and impaired judgment—precisely when communities most need clear, evidence-based guidance.
Why executive mental health gets overlooked
The culture of government leadership often equates vulnerability with weakness. Senior leaders are expected to be endlessly available and composed, even when experiencing anxiety, sleep disruption or compassion fatigue. This expectation is reinforced by norms such as “never let them see you sweat,” making it difficult for executives to seek help or admit to mental health struggles.
Organizational assessments and program designs tend to focus on visible stressors among frontline roles—customer service, engineers, police officers, 911 dispatchers—while executive distress remains masked. As a result, leaders’ mental health is frequently overlooked and under-addressed.
Policy contrast: The Officer Craig Tiger Act
Arizona’s Officer Craig Tiger Act exemplifies how government can recognize mental health as an occupational risk, but primarily for frontline public safety roles. Named after a Phoenix police officer whose death was linked to untreated PTSD, the law mandates fully covered counseling sessions following duty-related traumatic events and protects first responders’ pay and benefits during care.
This policy acknowledges that exposure to trauma is part of the job and that mental health support is a core employment benefit. However, similar protections rarely exist for agency heads, department directors or HR executives. Despite navigating prolonged crises and contentious policy debates, municipal executives lack codified support for their mental health. Extending occupational health protections to leadership roles would signal that executive well-being is integral to government capacity, not a private matter to be managed alone.
Consequences for agencies and residents
Ignoring the mental health of government leaders is not just a personal hardship—it is a systems risk. Executives experiencing chronic stress may struggle with decision-making and leadership at critical moments. Burnout among public servants has already been tied to higher turnover, delayed initiatives and weakened service quality. When leaders are not well, the ripple effects can undermine agency performance and public trust.
What public sector HR, councils and boards can do
Public sector HR leaders and governing bodies are uniquely positioned to bring executive mental health into the mainstream of workforce strategy. Here are three actionable steps:
1. Include executives in mental health assessments: Rather than assuming leadership is “fine,” HR should explicitly include executives and managers in mental health and burnout assessments. This ensures that the well-being of all staff, including those at the top, is measured and addressed.
2. Normalize confidential supports: Confidential counseling, coaching, peer consultation and structured time away should
be viewed as performance-sustaining tools for leaders—not just remedial measures. Normalizing these supports can help reduce stigma and encourage executives to seek help when needed.
3. Integrate mental health literacy into leadership development: Leadership development programs should incorporate mental health literacy, stress management and stigma reduction. This signals that caring for one’s own well-being is a core competency of effective public service leadership.
Modeling openness and resilience
The mental health of government executives is not a peripheral issue—it is a central determinant of agency effectiveness. Agencies that treat leadership well-being as foundational, on par with financial stewardship and compliance, will be better positioned to sustain clear-eyed, compassionate leadership through crises, political shifts and resource constraints.
By naming, measuring and proactively supporting the mental health of those at the top, public organizations can model the culture of openness and resilience they seek to build throughout the workforce and the communities they serve.
About the Authors
Bobbie Kimelton, Ph.D., is the director of human resources with Lake Havasu City, Ariz. She can be reached at kimeltonb@lhcaz.gov.
Kori Vogt is human resources manager with Lake Havasu City, Ariz. She can be reached at vogtk@lhcaz.gov.
