“Dear L&D” is a reflective letter-style series where learning leaders address the profession directly, giving voice to the lessons, challenges and opportunities shaping the future of learning and development (L&D).
Dear L&D,
We are well versed in helping leaders perform well under pressure. We teach them how to navigate ambiguity, communicate effectively, welcome change openly and influence naturally. Despite our good intentions, there is a quiet contradiction in many leadership development programs today: We prepare leaders to operate in systems that are slowly burning them out and then expect them to withstand it.
Burnout is often framed as a wellness issue that human resources (HR) can support through benefits or programming. In many organizations, it’s perceived as something individuals should manage better with stronger boundaries or more self-care.
However, I see a different pattern across organizations; leaders in back-to-back meetings from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Response expectations that stretch into evenings and weekends, enabled by technology that makes constant connectivity possible and often assumed. High achievers rewarded for urgency and output rather than thoughtful pacing and disciplined prioritization.
Burnout is rarely an individual resilience problem. It is often a workload and expectation problem.
While learning and development (L&D) doesn’t own burnout alone, we influence it more than we may realize. Every leadership program reinforces a model of work — through how we design learning experiences, what we reward and how we envision success. Although we don’t control quarterly targets, staffing ratios or corporate strategy, we do define what strong leadership looks like, and that definition matters.
I encourage you to consider what “strong leadership” looks like in your organization. Do qualities like constant availability, fast decision-making or unwavering productivity come to mind? Can your team say, “No, not right now” to the business, or do you find yourselves always saying “yes,” at any cost?
It’s an admirable instinct that strong leaders rise to the occasion and push themselves —and their teams — to meet expectations, no matter how demanding.
But what if we expanded our definition of strength? What if strength meant composure under pressure? Thoughtful pacing? Trusting teams? The courage to pause a project until the vision is clearer? The discipline to extend timelines long enough to uncover root cause instead of rushing toward resolution?
Fortunately, there are practical ways L&D can influence organizational change. If leadership development shapes behavior, it also shapes the emotional climate of the workplace.
First, we can redefine the behaviors we elevate.
When reimagining competency models or leadership frameworks, we can embed sustainable performance indicators. For example, do our models reward leaders who create psychological safety under pressure, model boundaries and recovery, and demonstrate composure during moments of emotional escalation?
When these behaviors are measured and recognized, leaders begin to consider pace and pressure alongside performance. Highlighting and rewarding them sends a powerful message that sustainability is not weakness but rather a leadership maturity.
Second, we can model healthy pace within our own programs.
Leadership experiences packed with content and compressed agendas unintentionally reinforce the very patterns that exhaust leaders. The way we design learning reflects how work should feel. Limiting learning blocks to 90 minutes, building in reflection pauses and ending sessions early when possible, demonstrate that insight deepens when boundaries exist — not when we operate in overdrive.
Finally, we can normalize conversations around capacity.
In many organizations, leaders talk about performance goals constantly, but rarely about capacity constraints. That silence fuels burnout. Without space to discuss workload openly, pressure becomes something individuals quietly absorb. Leadership programs can integrate reflection prompts such as, “What can be simplified, paused or eliminated?” Or “Where is your team’s workload stretched right now and what can be adjusted?” to invite in conversation and consideration. Teaching leaders to lead the workload, not just the people, reframes burnout from a personal shortcoming to a design consideration.
Encouragingly, none of these shifts require a new department or a large investment — only intentionality and the willingness to disrupt long-standing patterns. Burnout may not be L&D’s problem to solve alone. But if we shape how leaders lead, we also shape the conditions they operate within.
Perhaps the real question is this: What kind of leadership culture are we reinforcing, and what kind do we want to build?
If we are willing to reflect on that honestly, we have the power to create workplaces where performance and sustainability are not in conflict, and where strength includes steadiness.
