Most CEOs will tell you they are open to feedback.

And technically, they’re telling the truth.

According to research highlighted in Harvard Business Review, nearly 66% of CEOs do not receive any form of external leadership coaching or advisory input, even though 100% of those surveyed said they were receptive to feedback. That tension alone should stop us in our tracks.

The study, originally conducted in 2013 by Stanford University in partnership with The Miles Group, revealed something even more telling. When CEOs were asked to identify the area where they most needed development, conflict management skills topped the list, cited by nearly 43% of respondents.

This matters more than it sounds.

Conflict management isn’t about being “nice,” avoiding tension, or smoothing things over. At the executive level, conflict shows up as unresolved disagreements, passive resistance, unclear decision ownership, cultural drift, and emotional undercurrents no one names—but everyone feels. Left unaddressed, it quietly erodes trust, clarity, and momentum.

So why the gap?

If leaders are open to feedback, why aren’t they actively pursuing it?

In my experience, it’s rarely arrogance. More often, it’s isolation. The higher you lead, the fewer safe places exist to process tension honestly—without consequences, politics, or posturing.

Boards focus on outcomes. Teams need certainty. Peers are competitors. And internal advisors are rarely neutral.

The result is a paradox: leaders who are willing to grow, but unsure where—or with whom—to do the work.

And conflict, unmanaged, doesn’t stay contained. It leaks into culture, decision-making, and personal well-being.

Leadership doesn’t break down because CEOs stop caring.

It breaks down when pressure outpaces support.

That’s not a failure of character.

It’s a structural gap—and one worth closing.

Citation:
Harvard Business Review, citing the 2013 Stanford University / The Miles Group CEO Survey on executive leadership development and feedback receptivity.