Reasons changemakers experience burnout — and ways to maintain a bright flame instead.

      This article is part of our “Ask the Expert” series, where specialists provide their perspectives on some of the most urgent issues in our tech ecosystem. Reserve your spot for Santa Meyer-Nandi’s Ask the Expert session titled “How to burn bright, not out” at TNW2025 on June 20 at 15:30.

      In our work — whether developing sustainable management frameworks, advising climate innovation funds, or guiding impact entrepreneurs — we frequently encounter a common, unspoken barrier:

      Individuals are experiencing burnout, even as their concepts thrive.

      This isn't due to a lack of organization or weakness; quite the contrary.

      What we observe is a state of high-functioning burnout. The founder who meets deadlines and achieves results yet struggles to sleep. The policymaker who runs successful campaigns but whose nervous system remains in survival mode. The sustainability leader facilitating transformation within an organization while feeling unsupported herself.

      From the outside, everything may seem fine. However, this slowly diminishes motivation, creativity, and resilience—essential attributes for lasting change.

      Burnout is not a personal failing; it is a systemic response.

      The World Health Organization identifies burnout as a work-related phenomenon linked to chronic, unmanaged stress. A 2022 study by The Hartford found that 30% of employees felt less engaged due to burnout, while 25% had difficulty concentrating. Although these statistics are alarming, they likely downplay the significant toll burnout takes in fields such as sustainability, public service, or systems change—areas where the stakes are high and the emotional burden is often unacknowledged.

      Research published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine highlights the considerable impact of mental health-related absenteeism and presenteeism on workplace productivity. However, from our perspective, the costs extend beyond economics—they are relational, cultural, and strategic. Burnout can alter a project's trajectory long before its effects are evident in documentation.

      These individuals are not merely handling deadlines.

      They are navigating resistance, complexity, emotional labor, and moral pressure—all while forging new paths, often without a guide and frequently without colleagues who genuinely understand the landscape.

      Our experience spans boardrooms and government ministries. We've led public funds and cross-sector collaborations. Time and again, we find that it's not the absence of strong ideas or effective tools that hampers progress.

      It’s about the human architecture. It depends on whether the people involved feel grounded, acknowledged, and supported—both professionally and personally.

      Why we emphasize the importance of the other side of change

      As an environmental lawyer by training, my co-founder, Dr. Anna Katharina Meyer, has experience in energy transition, climate finance, and sustainability strategy. Together, we have spent numerous years developing the technical and financial frameworks for change: regulation, investment, and governance.

      And yet, repeatedly, we have observed projects stall not due to flawed ideas but because those championing them were too exhausted to press on.

      The largest unseen cost in systemic change relates to emotional and relational aspects.

      We have witnessed teams disband not for lack of enthusiasm—but because they did not have the opportunity to recover and reconnect. Not because individuals didn’t care—but because they felt isolated in their commitment.

      This is why we have begun discussing more openly what we once viewed as “side issues”: well-being, self-regulation, and emotional sustainability.

      Because these are not side issues at all.

      What is crucial is not only the tools people have but also whether the environment enables them to utilize those tools effectively. We are not romanticizing a slower pace; we are professionalizing resilience.

      Teams that are well-regulated, connected, and psychologically safe make superior decisions.

      This is not just a psychological insight; it’s a strategic one.

      What decision-makers should do now

      If you are involved in funding, leading, or designing systems for transformation, here are four areas to consider:

      1. Foster safety within ambition.

      High performance and psychological safety are not mutually exclusive. They are essential for sustainable excellence.

      2. Invest in communities, not solely projects.

      Strategic alignment alone is insufficient. People need peer connections and mutual acknowledgment to remain engaged in their work long enough to succeed.

      3. Prioritize emotional sustainability.

      Leaders and teams engaged in significant emotional labor require spaces where they can step away from their roles and express their humanity. This necessity is not indulgent; it is intelligent.

      4. Treat self-management and well-being as operational priorities.

      Incorporate rhythms for breaks, reflection, and recovery into your systems—especially during high-pressure periods.

      The future will be shaped by those capable of managing complexity while maintaining their well-being. By leaders who recognize that change exists not only in frameworks but also within culture. By teams that comprehend that sustainable impact requires internal sustainability as well.

      If we wish for transformation to endure, we must establish structures that allow individuals to remain in the game long enough to effect meaningful change.