Burnout, in this context, is a signal that the operating model is under strain and increasingly dependent on human effort to function. When burnout shows up in fund finance teams, it’s often treated as a wellbeing issue, framed around workload, resilience and culture.

Framed that way, burnout looks personal and manageable. Yet European CFO turnover reached 17% in 2023, a four-year high, bringing the total figure to 60% since 2020, according to analysis by Russell Reynolds Associates across major European listed indices. That level of leadership volatility signals increasing structural pressure at the top of European organisations.

In private markets, that pressure shows up as errors, delays, audit strain and growing dependence on a small number of people who hold everything together. The role has expanded in scope and intensity, but the underlying setup often hasn’t. 

When day-to-day fund operations feel harder than they should, it’s rarely a people issue and usually an operating model one, with manual work and fragmented workflows making burnout the symptom and fragility the risk.

‍

Burnout is not the real risk. Fragility is.

Burnout is a response with many causes, but it often intensifies when operations rely on people to absorb the strain the system can’t. As demands increase, quality degrades, controls become harder to evidence, reporting is harder to defend and errors rise. 

This pattern is reflected in an AccountsIQ survey of UK finance professionals, where 96% reported their teams being prone to errors.

‍

How burnout turns into fund-level risk

When workloads increase, the cracks in the operating model become visible. In finance teams, 83.3% report not having enough uninterrupted time for focused work, the kind reporting, controls and review processes depend on. The problem is that day-to-day execution still relies on workflows from a slower, more linear environment, and that mismatch is what makes the cracks structural rather than occasional.

1) Reporting risk: errors, rework, and delayed investor updates

Exhausted teams default to reactive mode. When data is inconsistent and processes rely on manual steps, rework multiplies. Reports need repeated correction before they can go out. With burnt-out teams shown to be around 13% less productive, the balance tips away from analysing performance and into fixing numbers and formatting outputs. Investor updates slow, and the team's bandwidth shrinks further.

2) Compliance and audit risk: control collapses when work is manual

Manual checks don't scale, and under pressure they're the first thing to break. When the working process is spread across spreadsheets, inboxes and PDFs, there is no single trail to follow. Reconstructing how a number was reached, or proving a control was run, becomes disproportionately difficult. Burnout makes this worse: tired teams miss details and let inconsistencies pass that fresh eyes would catch. The risk isn't just that controls are weak. It's that no one can prove they weren't.

3) Succession risk: key-person dependency becomes structural

Reporting can recover from delays, but not from losing the person who knows how the reports are produced. When systems are fragmented, knowledge lives in people's heads rather than in the process. Turnover then becomes costly and slow to recover from, because the logic of the work, the workarounds, the judgment calls, the institutional memory, leaves with the individual.

‍

The Pressure Loop

Taken together, these risks don't sit side by side. They feed each other. Tight timelines lead to mistakes. Mistakes create checking and rework. Rework pushes deadlines out, which increases pressure again. Manual work and fragmented tools make each step in that cycle harder to break, which is why burnout keeps returning in finance teams despite good intentions. Studies show it affects 17% of finance and insurance staff versus 12% across other sectors, and the gap is widening.

‍

The questions finance leaders are actually asking 

These questions surface when delivery still happens, but confidence depends on personal effort and informal workarounds rather than on how the work is set up:

• Why does control feel harder than it should?
• Why do we still rely on shadow processes?
• Why do I still need to personally sanity-check everything?
• Why does every quarter feel like starting again?

‍

If those questions resonate, it’s worth pressure-testing how reporting, review and approvals actually run in practice:

• Can you produce reporting without rebuilding your model?
• Do you spend more time reconciling than reviewing?
• Are approvals sequential or parallel?
• Can you trace every number to a source?
• Can someone new run the workflow without relying on one person?

‍

The stakes when fragility goes unaddressed

For funds under investor scrutiny, the pressure loop does not stay internal. Delayed or inconsistent reporting affects investor confidence directly at a time when allocation sentiment is strengthening and managers compete for capital, with the CAMMI index at 56.61 signalling expanding allocations. Audit findings become harder to defend. And when key people leave or are struggling to perform, the operational gap becomes visible to the people whose capital is being managed.

‍

What a lower-burnout operating model looks like.

A lower-burnout operating model focuses on how work flows, not how hard people work.

1) Reduce handoffs and make ownership obvious

Work slows down when responsibility is unclear. Clear ownership and defined inputs remove ambiguity early, so issues get flagged while they are still easy to fix. In practice, that means every step in a reporting workflow has a named owner, a defined input and a clear output. Work moves without constant checking, and when something is late or wrong, it is obvious where the problem is.

2) Build a single source of truth you can defend

Confidence comes from knowing where numbers come from and being able to stand behind them. When data lives in one place and updates flow through the same records, teams stop maintaining parallel versions and debating which file is final. Assumptions stay visible and changes are traceable. If an investor or auditor asks where a number came from, the answer is already there, without needing to rebuild the logic from scratch.

3) Move from quarterly rebuilds to continuous readiness

Quarterly rebuilds create unnecessary pressure because reporting gets treated as a reset rather than an ongoing process. When inputs stay structured and up to date throughout the period, reporting becomes an output of the existing work rather than a separate project at quarter end. The team is reviewing, not rebuilding. And when the quarter closes, the report is largely already done.

4) What an integrated operating model looks like in practice

This is exactly the operating gap bunch was built to address. Fund operations run on a shared system of record where software provides structure and automation, and fund administration support handles execution when judgement is required. Reporting holds up under scrutiny without depending on any single person to produce it. For CFOs looking to move from principles to implementation, that combination of software and service is where the shift actually happens.

‍

Burnout is a signal that your operating model needs redesign

In fund finance, strain builds when delivery depends on effort rather than structure. As responsibilities widen, teams compensate with manual work and repeated checking to keep things moving. That can sustain output in the short term, but it leaves the operation brittle when scrutiny increases or continuity is tested. The funds that scale cleanly use operating systems that limit manual work, reduce uncertainty and keep reporting quality intact as demands increase.

‍

Book a demo 

Meet our experts and learn how bunch combines technology and hands-on fund services to stop the cycle of burnout.