In the world of cybersecurity, we often talk about attacks, vulnerabilities, and incidents. Less is said about a silent variable that runs through the entire sector: fatigue . Not end-of-day tiredness, but a deeper, cumulative, and often invisible fatigue.
The result of years of constant vigilance, asymmetrical responsibilities, constant pressure, and increasingly blurred boundaries between work and private life. This is where burnout stops being an overused word and returns to being what it really is: a systemic signal .
The scientific literature is very clear on one point: burnout is not a personal weakness, but the result of unmanaged chronic work-related stress . The World Health Organization defines it as an occupational phenomenon characterized by emotional exhaustion, detachment from work, and reduced professional effectiveness.
In the IT and cybersecurity sector, these conditions are not exceptions, but risk becoming the norm.
Recent studies show that cybersecurity professionals report levels of stress and burnout equal to or higher than those in other high-intensity professions , including some healthcare professionals. In particular, research conducted on cyber teams and leadership roles highlights high levels of emotional exhaustion, with direct impacts on sleep quality and decision-making clarity.
The systematic review by Singh et al. describes cyber work as a ” war zone”-like environment, characterized by an ever-changing, hostile environment, constant demands for vigilance, and high levels of responsibility. It is therefore not surprising that stress is cited as a major factor in job dissatisfaction, job abandonment, and the intention to leave the industry.
Burnout, in this context, should not be seen as an individual failure, but as the predictable response of a human system exposed to demands that, over time, exceed its resources.
One of the most critical elements of cybersecurity work is sustained vigilance .
It’s not just about intervening when something happens, but about living in a state of constant alertness, often accompanied by the awareness that a mistake can have immediate, serious, and public consequences.
Several studies show that this condition produces a high and persistent cognitive load. Reeves and colleagues call them sleepless. sentinels , “ sleepless sentinels ”, describing how the combination of continuous availability, incident response and organizational pressure negatively impacts sleep quality and recovery ability, increasing the risk of burnout especially in roles of responsibility such as CISO and incident responder.
The research clearly speaks of alert fatigue , security fatigue and cognitive overload.
When exposure to critical stimuli is continuous, the human cognitive system—which is unable to function in a permanent state of emergency—begins to pay a price.
Qualitative and quantitative studies of incident responders, SOC analysts, and decision-makers show how chronic stress progressively reduces attention and decision-making capacity. Not because these professionals are incompetent, but because no human being is designed to sustain such a level of cognitive and emotional load indefinitely .
This fatigue, however, isn’t always visible. It manifests itself in more subtle ways: difficulty concentrating, slower decision-making, reduced tolerance for uncertainty, and emotional detachment from work.
A key point, often overlooked, is that chronic stress is not confined to the personal sphere .
Human factors research in cybersecurity shows that psychological exhaustion has direct effects on security behaviors.
Nobles speaks explicitly of security fatigue , defining it as “ a psychological response to perceived excessive security demands, which leads to disengagement, errors and circumvention of procedures ”.
The review by Singh et al. highlights how high stress is associated with:
The paradox is clear: ignoring human well-being means increasing the very risks that cybersecurity is supposed to prevent.
In other words, an exhausted professional is not a more resilient worker , but a person who works with reduced cognitive resources in a context that requires the highest level of clarity.
Yet, in the cyber sector, burnout is often underestimated and treated as an individual problem to be solved “in one’s spare time.”
In the public debate about cybersecurity, burnout often remains in the background.
It is normalized, minimized, sometimes even idealized as a sign of stoicism, dedication, or resilience.
Yet, the scientific literature is clear in showing that burnout is an indicator of a structural imbalance between job demands and available resources.
Recent studies on incident responders and senior roles in the cyber world highlight how prolonged exposure to critical events can have effects comparable, in emotional intensity, to those observed in other high-intensity decision-making contexts.
Making this effort visible doesn’t mean weakening the sector. On the contrary, it means making it more aware, mature, and sustainable. It means recognizing that security isn’t just a technological issue, but primarily a human, organizational, and cultural one.
If we need to defend critical infrastructure, sensitive data, and complex systems, we must start asking ourselves under what conditions we are doing so .
Research suggests that addressing organizational factors—workload, continuous availability, support, and recovery culture—is not just an ethical choice, but a concrete lever for safety and business continuity.
Wellbeing, in the IT and cyber world, should not be treated as an ancillary benefit, but must become an essential condition to ensure true clarity, reliability, and resilience over time.
Because the invisible burden of cybersecurity, if ignored, sooner or later becomes a visible, costly, and complex problem to manage.
And security incidents don’t just affect workers.
They concern us all.
Follow us on Google News to receive daily updates on cybersecurity. Contact us if you would like to report news, insights or content for publication.
