Why leaders with chronic illness are choosing partial disclosure at work

Diabetes Canada chief executive Laura Syron’s experience highlights the difficult balance between visibility, privacy and fears of being judged less capable at work.

Laura Syron says leading a national diabetes charity while living with type 2 diabetes has meant learning when to speak openly and when to keep some boundaries. In a personal essay published by KevinMD, the president and chief executive of Diabetes Canada describes the practical realities of managing a continuous glucose monitor during board meetings, speeches and media appearances, and the emotional cost of deciding how much of a chronic illness belongs in public view.

Syron’s account reflects a broader pattern identified in workplace research. A study discussed by Harvard Business Review, based on 326 leaders and interviews with senior executives, found that disclosure of a chronic illness is often gradual rather than all-or-nothing, with many leaders choosing partial transparency. Most of those studied said they did not regret disclosing, largely because it brought practical support, but many still held back for fear of being seen as weak or incompetent. Research from the University of Melbourne reached similar conclusions, finding that 28% of leaders surveyed did not disclose their illness, 54% disclosed only in part and 18% were fully open, with many worried about career damage.

That tension is particularly acute for women in senior roles. Syron argues that executives are still expected to project control and infallibility, even as they carry serious health conditions that can affect concentration, energy and performance. Her point is echoed in a study published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, which found that managerial attitudes can shape the working lives of women with chronic illness and that conventional expectations around sickness leave little room for conditions that do not simply disappear. Separate research cited by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that stigma and identity threat can increase strain at work and reduce perceived ability to do the job.

For Syron, speaking publicly is not the same as endorsing full disclosure for everyone. She makes clear that revealing a diagnosis remains a personal choice and may not suit every workplace or individual. But she also says secrecy can be isolating, especially for the millions of people living with diabetes and other long-term conditions who may be hiding medication, devices or symptoms in order to avoid judgement. Her argument is that visibility can help shift expectations, reduce stigma and make it easier for others to ask for support.

The case for openness is reinforced by research on why people disclose illness at work in the first place. A study published in Qualitative Research Reports in Communication found that employees often weigh disclosure against the risk of negative consequences, but may choose to speak up in order to keep working, explain absences or stay aligned with their values. Taken together, the evidence suggests that the decision to disclose is rarely simple. It is shaped by the culture of the organisation, the attitude of managers and the extent to which leaders are willing to make room for visible vulnerability without treating it as a weakness.