Why leaders avoid hard conversations, and what it costs

Three types of conversations get avoided more than any others in the workplace, according to health and wellness consultant Roni Millard – and the silence that follows is costing organisations dearly, both financially and in lost trust.

Speaking with HRD, Millard said performance conversations, personal or human conversations, and peer-to-peer conversations between senior leaders are the three categories she sees consistently sidestepped across her decades working in the corporate sector.

The three conversations leaders avoid

"The first is performance conversations, when someone isn't meeting expectations," Millard said. "These are uncomfortable because leaders worry about hurting feelings, how the conversation will land, or simply don't feel equipped to manage conflict. While there are plenty of corporate policies and templates to rely on, they can make things feel overly clinical, so the real skill is balancing clarity with humanity."

The second category, Millard said, involves personal struggles – illness, mental health, domestic violence, loss, and fertility struggles among them. "As it's all so personal and everyone has a different story, leaders often don't know what to say, worry about saying the wrong thing, or feel it's not their place," she said. "So instead, nothing gets said and the elephant in the room gets quietly pushed into the fridge with the door being firmly shut."

The third, and most overlooked, are peer-to-peer conversations at senior levels, Millard said. "Leaders avoid addressing issues with each other because they don't want to rock the boat, don't have the energy, or are simply focused on getting through and collecting their pay cheque," she said.

The cost of staying silent

The consequences of avoidance extend well beyond individual discomfort, Millard warned. "When difficult conversations are avoided, trust erodes. People don't feel safe to speak up, so they put the proverbial mask on and keep performing. But you can't switch off what's going on internally. When things are left unsaid, they don't disappear, they build."

The financial scale of disengagement is significant. Gallup's State of the Global Workplace 2025 report found global employee engagement fell from 23% to 21% in 2024, costing the world economy an estimated $438 billion in lost productivity – only the second decline of its kind in 12 years. Gallup also estimated that lifting global engagement to the level of "exceptional workplace" organisations could unlock $9.6 trillion in productivity, equivalent to roughly 9% of global GDP.

Millard cautioned, however, that encouraging people to speak up is only half the equation. "We also need to equip people to do it well and safely," she said. "If you feel uncomfortable raising something, take someone with you. Have a peer, HR or another leader present to support the conversation, take notes, or, if appropriate and agreed, record the discussion." Poorly handled conversations carry their own risks, she added, particularly for mental health and wellbeing.

Practical steps for leaders

For leaders who recognise they've been avoiding a tough conversation, Millard's first recommended step is to pause and get clear. "What is the issue? Why does it matter? What is the impact? If you can articulate it simply to yourself, you're far more likely to communicate it effectively."

Setting and environment matter too, she said, down to where people sit in the room. Giving the other person context beforehand – without a full agenda – allows them to prepare, while serious or escalation-prone conversations should involve a third party such as HR or another senior leader for support and a record of what was discussed.

Above all, Millard said leaders should resist leaning entirely on HR scripts. "People can sense when something isn't genuine," she said. "I've seen leaders lift language straight from HR templates or advice, and it rarely lands well. In fact, it can feel impersonal and, at times, even insulting." The best leaders bring their own voice to conflict resolution between colleagues rather than hiding behind process.

Following the conversation, Millard recommends summarising what was agreed and inviting the other person to confirm or add to it, followed by a genuine, unscripted check-in. "The leaders who do this well bring their own voice to the conversation," she said. "At its core, it comes down to respect. Treat people how you would want to be treated. Be clear, be kind, and be real."