LET'S STOP CALLING IT CHANGE RESISTANCE: Mistaking Confusion for Resistance is Solving the Wrong Problem

by Leslie Rohonczy, IMC, PCC, Executive Coach & Author

(LISTEN TO NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

"People just don't like change." I've heard that sentence hundreds of times over the years, usually from a frustrated leader trying to explain why an important initiative isn't gaining traction.

I don't buy it. People change all the time. We change jobs, get married, become parents, move across the country, learn new technologies, adapt to reorganizations, new bosses, new colleagues, and entirely new careers. If humans were naturally resistant to change, civilization would have ground to a halt somewhere around the invention of indoor plumbing.

So perhaps we've been diagnosing the wrong problem all along. In my experience, people aren't nearly as resistant to change as leaders imagine. But they ARE resistant to confusion, and that's a big difference.

Imagine you're standing in an airport waiting to board a flight. The departure board suddenly flashes "Gate Changed." No problem. You gather your things and head to the new gate. Now imagine the board starts changing every few minutes. Gate 18. Gate 26. Back to Gate 18. Flight delayed. Actually... on time. Please wait for further announcements. No explanation. No updates. No one seems to know what's happening.

You haven't become resistant to flying; you've become exhausted by trying to make sense of conflicting information. And that's what organizational change often feels like.

One executive I coached was convinced her leadership team was pushing back on a major transformation. "They just won't get on board," she told me. As we unpacked what was happening, a different picture emerged. Different executives were communicating different priorities. Success hadn't been clearly defined. As a result, some teams had already started changing their processes, while others had been told to wait. Timelines shifted weekly. Nobody knew which decisions had actually been made and which were still under discussion. Her team wasn't resisting the future, as she'd thought; they were just trying to survive the present. That distinction completely changes the leadership response.

If we assume people hate change, we tend to push harder. We communicate more frequently; another town hall with another corporate slide deck. We repeat the vision one more time, hoping it'll resonate, and that enthusiasm will eventually take over.

Sometimes the problem isn't a lack of communication. It's a lack of clarity.

Cognitive psychology and neuroscience researchers have long recognized that uncertainty increases cognitive load. When we can't confidently predict what's happening around us, our brains naturally direct more energy to monitoring for risk and filling in the gaps. That leaves us with less mental capacity for creativity, problem-solving, collaboration and learning.

When information is missing, we rarely leave the blanks empty. Our brains naturally want to connect all the bits and pieces of data we do have, by filling in the story with imagined information. It's a normal human response. And we rarely get it right. "I guess my role isn't important anymore." "They've probably already made the decision." "I'd better wait before I commit." "They're changing direction again."

As an executive coach, I spend a surprising amount of time helping leaders separate facts from the stories they've unconsciously constructed. Organizations do exactly the same thing. Confusion is a story factory. The irony is that leaders often perceive these behaviours as evidence that people are resistant or hesitant. People are asking lots of questions, waiting, and not taking initiative. From the leader's perspective, it looks like reluctance. But from the employee's perspective, it feels more like self-protection.

If we're striving to eliminate uncertainty, we're on a fool's errand. It just isn't possible. Markets shift, customers evolve, governments turn over, technology advances, and tactical plans evolve.

What if instead, we focused on eliminating unnecessary confusion. How? By making decisions visible, clearly explaining what is known, what remains uncertain, and when more information will be available, while carefully distinguishing between firm decisions and emerging possibilities. And by transparently acknowledging the ambiguity, rather than masking it with false certainty. And by recognizing that clarity is not achieved through a single announcement, but cultivated through an ongoing, intentional leadership practice.

In coaching conversations, when I hear a leader say, "My team is resisting change," I almost always become curious about something else. I wonder what the team might be confused about. And when I ask that question, it usually leads us somewhere much more useful. Because once confusion is reduced, something remarkable often happens: the resistance starts dissipating on its own.

Perhaps people were never resisting the change. Perhaps they were just trying to find stability as the ground moved under them, before taking the next step. And that is a very human thing to do.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Choose a current change your team is navigating and set aside 20 minutes to work through this exercise.

1. Write down the change in one clear sentence.

2. List the key areas where confusion might exist. For example: priorities, roles, timelines, decision-making, success measures.

3. For each area, ask yourself: What have I explicitly communicated? What might still be unclear or inconsistent? Where could people be filling in the gaps with their own assumptions?

4. Identify one or two specific actions you can take this week to reduce that confusion, such as clarifying a decision, aligning messaging with your leadership team peers, or naming what is still unknown.

5. Check in with your team and ask them directly: “What feels unclear right now?” Listen without correcting or defending.

6. Reflect on what shifted when you focused on increasing clarity.

If you're curious about creating greater clarity, alignment, and confidence in your leadership team, I'd love to explore it with you. Reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com

LACK OF PRODUCTIVE CONFLICT IS A WARNING SIGNAL: How Politeness Culture Filters Out the Truth

By Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC

Executive Coach | Leadership Development Expert | Author | Speaker | ©2026 | www.leslierohonczy.com

(LISTEN TO THE AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

You’ve likely been in this meeting (and if you’re honest, you may have even been running it). You lay out a direction, walk the group through your thinking, and open the floor. A few people nod as you speak. Someone says 'It makes sense'. Another adds that they are on board and ready to move forward. The tone is smooth, the discussion feels easy, and nothing in the room signals friction. You leave that conversation reassured that you have alignment.

A few weeks later, the energy is different. The work is moving, but not with any real momentum. You find yourself stepping in more than expected, answering questions that shouldn't need your input, and wondering why something that seemed so clear is not gaining traction.

This is usually the point where leaders turn their attention to execution. They start tightening timelines, increasing check-ins, and stepping in more frequently to keep things moving. It feels like a delivery problem that needs more oversight or clearer direction.

But the breakdown did not start in the execution phase. It started earlier, in the meeting itself, when alignment appeared to be present but was never fully established. What looked like agreement, wasn't; it was a group of people making a rapid, often unconscious decision about how to respond in that moment. For some, it may have been about protecting the relationship. For others, it was about not slowing things down, not wanting to challenge too early, or not being certain their perspective would add value. And for some, it was simply easier to agree in the moment and revisit it later, even if that conversation never actually happened.

If this sounds familiar, you're in good company. In Canadian workplaces, politeness shapes how people respond in real time, especially when they are unsure how their input will land. It influences what gets said, how it is said, and in many cases, whether it even gets said at all.

Over time, that creates a gap between what is expressed in the room and what people are actually thinking. Leaders hear support. Teams experience something more complicated.

I recently coached a senior leader who couldn't understand why his teams weren't giving him honest feedback, or bringing forward stronger ideas to challenge the status quo. He had been very clear that he wanted input. He said it often, and he meant it. From his perspective, the invitation was wide open.

From his team’s perspective, they saw it differently. He moved quickly in meetings and responded to ideas as they were raised. He tended to build on what he liked and move past what he did not, often without much pause. He also closed discussions as soon as he felt he had enough to make a decision (which happened faster than he realized). None of his behaviour was aggressive or dismissive; it was just how he liked to operate.

In these conditions he'd created, his team had stopped testing ideas that were not fully formed. They held back perspectives that might have slowed the conversation down. They paid attention to where he seemed to be leaning and aligned themselves accordingly. The meetings stayed smooth, the tone stayed positive, and the appearance of agreement remained intact.

From the outside, the issue is easy to spot. From the inside, it is almost invisible. They were operating within it, shaped by it, adapting to it in real time, like fish that have no awareness of the water they're swimming in. People were no longer bringing their full thinking into the room. They were participating, but in a narrower way; contributing, but without the same level of ownership. They were staying engaged enough to keep things moving while gradually pulling back from conversations that held greater risk.

That shift is easy to miss because it does not create obvious disruption. There are no raised voices, no visible conflict, and no obvious signs that something is wrong. Everything continues to look professional and well-managed.

The cost shows up later, when decisions move forward without the benefit of a broader perspective. Execution starts to stall. Leaders find themselves carrying more of the load than they expected, stepping in to clarify, reinforce, and push things along.

At that point, it is tempting to question commitment, engagement, or capability. More often, the issue is access. Access to what people are actually seeing, thinking, and questioning. Access to the ideas that stayed in someone’s head because the moment did not feel right to share it. Access to the concerns that were softened beyond being recognizable, or left unsaid altogether. When that access narrows, the quality of thinking narrows with it.

This matters even more in the current environment. Canadian organizations are operating with tighter margins, higher expectations, and less room for missteps. Leaders need people who are willing to engage fully, especially when the path forward is not obvious. Politeness, when it goes unchecked, can work against that.

So the question shifts. Instead of wondering why people are not speaking up, it would be more useful to ask what they are responding to in how you lead. Your behaviour sets the conditions for how far others are willing to go. When you jump in within seconds of someone speaking, wrap a discussion before others have weighed in, or signal a preferred direction through your tone or follow-up questions, people notice. They constantly read your pace, your reactions, and your follow-through.

They notice how quickly you respond to ideas and which ones you stay with. They notice whether a differing perspective changes anything or simply gets set aside. They notice how much space there is to think before the conversation moves on.

These signals shape participation far more than any verbal invitation. When people see that their input can influence direction, they lean in. When they don't see that connection, they conserve their effort and contribute in more predictable ways that feel safer. And those conversations, while they may be easier to manage, are ultimately less useful.

Leaders who want stronger engagement often focus on saying the right things: asking for feedback, inviting challenge, and reinforcing candour and openness. Those behaviours matter, of course, but they're not the deciding factor. People are looking for evidence: for moments where input changes the course of a discussion; for signs that it'll be worth the effort to bring forward something that may not land perfectly; for a reason to believe that speaking up will make a difference. That evidence is created in how you handle the conversation, not in how you frame the invitation.

When that evidence is present, you experience a shift. Conversations deepen, and people stay in the discussion longer. When it is not present, politeness fills that space and limits what is shared. Over time, that creates distance between what leaders hear and what their teams are actually thinking. And that distance is where disengagement grows.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Think about a recent meeting where agreement came quickly; the kind of moment where everyone nodded, and you moved on without resistance.

In your next meeting, when that moment happens again, do something different: Pause the conversation and say, “Before we move on, I want to test something with you. What are we not saying right now?” Then stop talking. Hold the silence. Let the squirmy discomfort show up. Do not rescue the moment, and do not soften the question. This can be harder than it sounds, especially if we're used to a faster pace to a solution.

When someone offers a partial answer, stay with it longer than you normally would. Ask them what else they were considering but chose not to say. Let the room see that 'first layer thinking' isn't enough.

If nothing comes, name that too. Say what you are observing about the speed of agreement, and your curiosity about what might be underneath it.

After the meeting, reflect on what shifted; not just in what was said, but in how the room responded when you disrupted the well-worn pattern. That is where you start to regain access to what is actually in the room.

If you're starting to wonder what's going unsaid in your leadership meetings, that's a conversation worth having. Reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

WHY STRAIGHT TALK FEELS RISKY: The Cost of Safe Language

(LISTEN TO THE NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

A DECISION THAT NEVER ACTUALLY GETS MADE

You walk out of the meeting knowing that you and your colleagues have just spent ninety minutes talking intelligently about something that still hasn’t been decided.

Everyone contributes. The conversation is thoughtful and measured. People ask good questions, they share competing perspectives, and acknowledge differing opinions. There’s nuance, context, and carefully chosen language designed to signal openness and respect.

And yet, when the meeting ends, there’s no clear owner, no visible decision, and no shared understanding of what should move forward versus what remains under consideration. In other words, no one is sure what happens next.

The energy in the room isn’t tense or dysfunctional; it’s polite, competent, and professional. It’s also oddly unresolved, as if the big, important thing is hovering overhead, just out of reach, and unnamed. People leave with their notes and impressions, and often their assumptions begin to diverge the moment they leave the meeting.

Most of us recognize this moment immediately because it appears everywhere, in meetings at work, around family tables, and within long-standing friendships. We care about the people we’re talking with, and we care what they think about us and our perspectives. That’s just human nature, and it shapes how we choose our words. It feels like choosing careful language is a kindness, a way of being respectful and considerate. And sometimes it is.

The problem starts when careful language replaces clear, shared understanding. What feels risky in those moments isn’t actually the wording itself; it’s the exposure of our real opinions and priorities to the judgment of others, especially when relationships, reputation, or future influence feels at stake. When we avoid that exposure and tell ourselves we’re doing it out of care, the real cost shows up as eroding trust, slower decisions, and a lack of clarity that leaves others guessing where we actually stand.

HOW SAFE LANGUAGE BECOMES THE DEFAULT

We don’t end up in careful, polite conversations that never quite land because we’re timid or unclear thinkers. We arrive here through experience, because over time, we've watched words travel. We've seen them land in the moment, then move through emails, meetings, and retellings, and eventually come back sounding slightly different than what we intended. We’ve seen sentences lifted out of context, replayed in hallways, or forwarded with altered meanings, so we learn that showing our real views, preferences, and positions can feel risky, not because words are dangerous, but because being seen clearly can be.

Over time, we begin cushioning what we say. We add qualifiers; we soften edges; we leave doors open, just in case. And we choose language that signals caution rather than decisiveness.

In coaching conversations, I often hear this described as trying to be careful, not wanting to shut anything down, or wanting to leave room for input. Underneath that language is something more human and more uncomfortable to name: a desire to avoid being judged, misunderstood, or seen in a poor light, and a hope that by softening our words we can protect both other people’s feelings and our own credibility.

Safe language becomes a way for us to try to keep the peace, avoid awkward moments or pushback, and give ourselves some room to manoeuvre when things feel complicated. It feels responsible, especially when the stakes are high and the audience is broad. The trouble starts when this way of speaking becomes the default rather than a deliberate choice.

WHEN PROTECTION BECOMES A PROBLEM

At a certain point, the very language designed to protect us from exposure begins to create its own problems.

Decisions slow down. Ownership becomes fuzzy. Teams start doing interpretation work, trying to read between the lines to figure out what their leader actually means.

I write about a standout moment like this in my book Coaching Life, in chapter 19 on authenticity. I remember watching a senior leader in action at a large leadership meeting, and he was spectacular. As the chief executive officer and other executives presented their strategy, he calmly stood up from the audience, took the microphone, and stepped into what felt like a real danger zone to share his view of the progress they had made so far. His assessment was quite different from the prevailing stance in the room.

He didn’t posture or perform. He challenged their thinking respectfully but boldly, naming what wasn’t working and where they needed to do better. I remember sitting there, along with more than two hundred other leaders, completely gobsmacked by what we were witnessing.

Many of us interpreted that moment as bravery, and it was. But what struck me more deeply was how grounded he was in his convictions, and how willing he was to let others see where he actually stood. He spoke truth to power in a high-stakes forum, not to provoke, but because he believed it mattered.

His insights and opinions that day changed the course of several initiatives, and reprioritised the work in ways that helped the organisation regain focus and move forward. Within two years, he was promoted to a senior executive role, and later invited to step in as the acting chief executive officer during a leadership transition. That moment stayed with me because it showed the other side of the story. Straight talk can feel risky, but when it’s rooted in conviction and clarity, it can also build trust, momentum, and credibility in ways that careful language never will.

WHY THIS GETS HARDER WITH SENIORITY

As roles become more senior, straight talk can start to feel riskier, not because people lose confidence or capability, but because being seen clearly carries broader consequences.

At higher levels, there are more stakeholders to consider, more political dynamics to navigate, and more ripple effects that can’t be fully predicted, which means a single, clearly stated view is more likely to be interpreted, repeated, and acted on in ways that extend far beyond the original moment. We’ve all seen an executive make an offhand remark or ask a curious question, only to watch that comment turn into a full-blown project, when all they were really doing was thinking out loud. A single sentence can land very differently depending on who hears it and when.

At more senior levels, it's easy to confuse diplomacy with ambiguity and kindness with vagueness, because we're holding more than our own reputation. We're holding relationships, culture, and momentum along with it.

Straight talk begins to feel like something that might cost too much, because it can ask us to be seen more clearly than we’re quite comfortable with.

What often goes unspoken is that people can feel that hesitation, even when they can’t quite name it. They sense when their leader is circling around their real point of view rather than naming it directly. Over time, that gap erodes confidence, not only in the leader and their willingness to stand behind a clear position, but also in the team's confidence in their own judgment, and in the organization itself.

WHAT STRAIGHT TALK REQUIRES IN PRACTICE

I want to be clear about something here, because straight talk is not an abstract idea for me, nor is it optional in my work. As an executive coach, choosing clarity over comfort is part of the job. Speaking truth to power, naming what I see, and surfacing what others are often thinking but not saying isn't a stretch goal or nice to have; it’s a professional responsibility.

That doesn’t mean it’s effortless, or that there’s no judgment to navigate. It means I’ve learned that avoiding discomfort in the moment usually creates more discomfort later, for clients, teams, and systems that are already carrying too much ambiguity.

What this looks like in practice is a commitment to clarity over comfort. It means naming the real issue rather than circling it, being precise about what I see rather than over‑framing it, and resisting the urge to soften edges in ways that cloud new awareness or slow movement. It means trusting that people are more capable of handling clarity than we sometimes give them credit for, and remembering that avoiding discomfort in the moment usually creates more work later.

Those questions matter because straight talk, when it's done well, isn’t about provocation or bravado. It’s about respecting people enough to trust that they can handle clarity and candour. It’s about being willing to stand behind what you see and say, even when it creates a moment of discomfort. That’s the kind of visibility this work requires, and it’s the standard I hold myself to.

RECLAIMING STRAIGHT TALK

Straight talk isn’t harshness, oversharing, or saying everything that crosses your mind. It’s a willingness to let others see where you actually stand, in language that makes decisions clearer and action easier. It’s language that encourages movement. It reduces the invisible labour of interpretation that teams are so often left to carry. It names decisions without posturing and sets direction without shutting people down. The real work isn’t abandoning care, but noticing when care has turned into avoidance.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Before your next important conversation, pause and ask yourself this:

Where might my careful language be helping, and where might it now be getting in the way of clarity?

Then choose one situation where you will experiment with being a little more visible than usual. Name what you actually think. Be clear about what you are seeing, what you believe and why it matters, or what you think needs to happen next. Notice the urge to soften or over‑explain, and see what happens when you allow yourself to resist it. You don’t need to be blunt or provocative. You just need to be clear enough that others don’t have to guess where you stand.

As you experiment with this, notice three specific things:

1. How the conversation changes, for example, whether it becomes more focused or less tense

2. The impact on decision-making, such as clearer ownership or more explicit next steps

3. How people respond to you, including whether they ask fewer follow-up questions because your position is easier to understand

Once you’ve noticed these patterns, use your observations as data that will guide how and when you choose to be more visible in future conversations, especially in moments where you might normally default to caution.

If you'd like to explore the skill of straight talk in the context of your own leadership evolution, reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com

WHEN CANDOUR BACKFIRES: The Risk of Being “Too Real” At Work

Every leader knows that knot-in-the-stomach feeling before saying something tough. You spot a flaw in the strategy your boss is championing. You need to tell a high performer that their style is alienating the team. Or you’re about to voice the only dissenting view in a room full of nodding heads. These moments test your courage. And they test your skill. Because candour can land like a gift or a gut punch.

WHEN CANDOUR CLOSES DOORS

I once worked with a talented, passionate woman who proudly called herself a “straight-talker.” Her feedback was always honest and never sugar-coated and many colleagues, including me, valued her candour, even if it was sometimes hard to hear. She genuinely believed that being blunt built trust. The problem? Over time, some of her colleagues started describing her as prickly, demanding, and impossible to please. She had strong ideas about what needed to change, but no one wanted to listen. Her accuracy wasn’t the problem. Her delivery was.

That’s what happens when candour is used like a blunt instrument. We think we’re being authentic, but what others hear is harshness or judgment. Instead of opening doors, it slams them shut.

Bravery and bluntness aren’t the same thing. Saying the tough thing in its rawest form isn’t courageous, it’s lazy, and it often triggers defensiveness, sidelining the very point we’re trying to make. When people feel attacked, their stress response kicks in: cortisol spikes, reasoning plummets, and they literally can’t process what we’re saying. The harder we push, the more they resist. Real bravery is being intentional and skilful, delivering the hard truth in ways that keep people open long enough to be able to take it in.

Harvard’s Professor of Leadership Amy Edmondson has shown through her groundbreaking research on psychological safety that people can only absorb tough feedback when they feel safe in the relationship. Neuroscience confirms this: when people feel threatened, cortisol floods the system and reasoning goes offline. Practical tools like the SBI model (Situation–Behaviour–Impact) help ground feedback in specifics, while Kim Scott’s Radical Candor highlights that true candour means challenging directly while caring personally. Used together, these insights show that candour done well strikes a balance that keeps people open rather than defensive.

I once worked with a senior leader at a Canadian non-profit who needed to push back on her board chair’s aggressive expansion plans. Her instinct was to challenge him directly at the next Board meeting, but she understood that would likely create resistance. Instead, she framed her intent around protecting the organisation’s reputation, backed her points with financial data, and raised her deeper leadership concerns privately. The conversation led to a more sustainable plan. No fireworks, no fallout, just progress.

Candour only works if the other person stays open. That means paying attention to how, when, and where you say it. Here are a few ways to do that:

• Frame your intent. Signal why you’re raising the issue. “I want to flag something that could help us avoid risk.” That shifts you from critic to ally, putting you on the same side of the table, looking at the problem together.

• Ground in specifics. Vague feedback invites defensiveness. Concrete examples invite reflection.

• Ask questions. They turn confrontation into collaboration. “What do you think was happening there?” lands differently than “You always interrupt.”

• Pick your stage wisely. Some truths belong in private, not in front of a crowd. If your feedback could cause embarrassment or touches on personal behaviours, it should be delivered one-on-one rather than in a group setting.

• Choose timing with care. At the end of a long day, or during a challenging event, even valid feedback can feel like an attack.

• Balance candour with care. Acknowledge strengths or intentions alongside the tough message.

• Check your motive. Are you trying to help, or just venting? Only the first one builds trust.

• Watch non-verbals. Notice body language and tone to gauge how your message is landing. And don’t assume you’re right. Check in and ask.

WHEN “TOO REAL” IS JUST SELF-INDULGENT

We’ve all heard someone brush off someone’s reaction to their harsh comments with, “I’m just being real.” At first, that sounds admirable. Who doesn’t want authenticity? But “being real” can quickly become careless. If your candour leaves people bruised, blindsided, or frustrated, that’s not candour. That’s self-indulgence. Dumping unfiltered thoughts might clear your conscience, but it won’t build trust.

Real candour is relational in that it makes your message useful for the person receiving it. That means choosing words that invite reflection, balancing critique with acknowledgement of strengths, and checking if the timing will allow the other person to take it in fully. Without this calibration step, “just being real” is just offloading.

TWO SIDES OF THE CANDOUR COIN

One senior leader I coached was working on taking up her full leadership space in her new role on the executive team. She realized that she needed to give her peers feedback that their aversion to risk was stifling innovation. “We’ve always done it this way” had become the default mindset, and any fresh ideas from below were met with suspicion or dismissed as too ‘out there’.

Her instinct at first was to stay quiet, to avoid being labelled as disruptive or reckless. Instead, we focused on carefully preparing her for this crucial conversation. During the executive committee meeting, she clarified her motives and framed her candour as being in service of the organisation’s growth. She highlighted specific missed opportunities and tied them to the organisation’s own goals around customer growth. Because she chose her timing and messaging wisely, her peers stayed open. What could have been dismissed as contrarian turned into a real conversation about risk-friendly, test-and-learn innovation pilots.

Another executive client faced the opposite issue. He had a reputation for sharp wit and “telling it like it is.” His communication style got laughs, but it also made colleagues become guarded around him, nervous at the prospect of becoming his next punchline.

Over time, he realised that his humour was a shield for his own insecurity about being challenged. Jokes let him stay one step ahead of others and avoid vulnerability. Once he understood that pattern, he experimented with softening his delivery, clarifying his intent, and creating space for others to respond. By taking the risk of being more open, he shifted from sarcastic critic to trusted challenger, and his candour started to build, rather than break, relationships.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Candour is essential for trust, culture, and performance. Without it, leaders become echo chambers. With it, they spark growth, accountability, and innovation. The risk lies in mistaking candour for a licence to say whatever you want, without considering how it will land with others.

Here’s a quick practice that combines courage with care:

1. Identify your audience. Ask yourself: Is this the right audience, and the right moment for them?

2. Check your motive. Are you speaking to help the other person grow, or to clear your own frustration?

3. Frame your intent. Start with why you are raising it, so the other person knows your purpose is constructive.

4. Ground in specifics. Share clear examples of what you saw or heard and describe the impact.

5. Balance with care. Acknowledge a strength or positive intent alongside your challenge.

6. Ask, don’t tell. Invite reflection with a question that keeps the door open.

7. Pair challenge with care. As you raise the hard message, make it clear you respect and value them, and you genuinely care about them.

8. Reflect and revise. Notice what happens: do people lean in and open into conversation, or shut down and disengage? The difference will tell you how skilfully you’ve used candour.

Candour is a leadership skill that can build trust and momentum when used with care, or that can erode relationships when used carelessly. Mastering the art of speaking truth to power with the right amount of candour can be a real career booster when done well. If you want to strengthen your ability to deliver tough truths in ways that keep people open and engaged, executive coaching can help. Reach out for a free exploratory conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com to learn how coaching can support your leadership growth.

COLD DATA, WARM MEANING & ROI: Relevant Leadership in the AI Age

Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC, Executive Coach, Leadership Expert, Speaker, Author

The bots are coming! The bots are coming!

Actually, they're already here, and they're forever changing the very fabric of how we work. But if you’ve been wondering whether Artificial Intelligence might someday replace your role as a leader, let's look at what leadership truly calls for in this new machine-learning era. AI may change how we work, but the beating heart of leadership remains profoundly human.

As AI continues to transform how businesses operate, streamlining workflows, crunching complex data, and making rapid decisions, it’s easy to imagine that our human value could be diminishing. But if leaders want to remain relevant, there's one area to double down on, where machines still can’t compete: emotional intelligence.

Hey, good news! It turns out, being human is your competitive advantage.

COLD DATA MEETS WARM MEANING

AI excels at what we might call 'cold data': facts, figures, patterns, research, and probabilities, all processed at a speed that boggles the mind. This ability to process vast amounts of information, find efficiencies, and surface insights is immensely valuable, especially where timely decisions matter.

But leadership decisions don’t happen in a vacuum 

Leaders also rely on 'warm meaning': the emotionally rich, human context we pick up through connection with each other: tone, silence, body language, relationships, intuition, and trust. This isn’t abstract or fluffy woo-woo stuff; it’s grounded, perceptive intelligence.

Warm meaning is what tells you when your team is nearing burnout, when a conflict is quietly gaining momentum, or when someone’s underperformance is rooted in fear, not laziness. When leaders rely only on the available cold data, without tuning in to the emotional dynamics that shape behaviours, they're missing out on half of the critical information they could be using, the kind of information that doesn’t show up on a dashboard, but that shows up in people.

In leadership, 'warm meaning' is about how we connect, how we listen, and respond to the emotional reality around us. AI can inform you that productivity is dipping. But it won’t tell you that your top performer is quietly job-hunting after being passed over for a promotion.

High-impact leaders use both cold data to sharpen their decisions, and warm meaning to ensure they land in ways that inspire, motivate, align, and sustain. 

In fact, it’s not just about what you know – it’s about how wisely and humanely you apply it. Future-ready leaders are experimenting with a new equation: AI + EI = ROI. But more on this in a minute

WHY AI ISN’T YOUR ENEMY

I've talked to many leaders about how AI is impacting their teams, and their roles. Some are excited by the possibilities and are willing to embrace it. Others are fearful that they'll become irrelevant, replaced by this technology altogether. While there's no way to predict exactly how the future will unfold, one thing is already clear: AI isn’t the enemy; it’s a powerful ally that, when used well, enhances decision-making, accelerates innovation, and frees up capacity for higher-value work.

According to McKinsey’s 2023 Global Survey, 55% of organisations have adopted AI in at least one function, up from 20% just five years ago. That number will keep rising. Today’s AI tools are being used to:

• Predict customer behaviour with remarkable accuracy

• Personalise employee learning and development pathways

• Improve hiring processes with less bias (when designed properly)

• Monitor operational performance

• Optimise pricing strategies based on real-time market data

• Identify emerging market trends ahead of competitors

• Streamline back-office operations such as scheduling, forecasting, and logistics

• Assist with regulatory compliance by flagging anomalies and generating audit trails

• Provide frontline customer support through natural language chatbots and virtual assistants

Here’s the part that makes me hopeful, even excited, for the future: the World Economic Forum has identified emotional intelligence as one of the top 10 skills of the future. I'm excited about this because, as machines take over routine tasks, the human differentiators – empathy, influence, relationship-building, and self-awareness – become more valuable, not less.

THE EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE EDGE

High-performing leaders make people feel seen; they pause before reacting, ask the question no one else thought to ask (or was brave enough to ask). They’re the ones who can read the tension in a room without a word being spoken, who notice when someone’s holding back, and who can name what others are skirting around. That’s emotional intelligence in motion, and in the mad scramble to hire the best and brightest, corporate recruiters look for leaders with high EQ, which is quickly becoming the most powerful differentiator that can set you apart from the pack. 

Daniel Goleman, who helped bring emotional intelligence into the leadership spotlight, found that nearly 90% of the difference between star performers and average ones comes down to EI – not technical expertise. 

And in 2020, a study published in Frontiers in Psychology found that leaders with high emotional intelligence had teams with significantly higher performance, well-being, and engagement scores.

AI + EI: THE NEW LEADERSHIP BALANCE

The future of leadership isn’t about becoming more robotic. It’s about becoming more human. It’s about blending AI’s cold precision with your own warm presence. Here’s how:

1.      Use AI to inform, not replace, your judgment. Let the data shape your understanding, but not override your wisdom. If AI says productivity is down, ask your team what’s going on before assuming laziness. Trust the numbers, but verify the narrative.

2.      Lead with emotional context. When making decisions with AI input, add the layer that only you can: what’s the emotional temperature of your team? How will this land with them? What invisible variables might be in play?

3.      Practice strategic empathy. Anticipate emotional responses and design your communication with care, especially during change, uncertainty, or conflict, to meet people where they are. Emotionally intelligent leaders don’t just feel for others; they act on that understanding.

4.      Build human-centred cultures in tech-driven environments. AI doesn’t build culture, people do. Use your emotional intelligence to create environments where curiosity, learning, feedback, and collaboration flourish, even when bots are doing half the work.

5.      Model emotional self-regulation. Leaders set the emotional tone. If you’re short-tempered or avoidant under pressure, your team will mirror that. Use self-awareness tools, mindfulness techniques, and coaching to manage your own triggers and stay grounded in tough moments.

One of my current coaching clients is a senior executive in the tech sector, with 7 regional teams in her span of control. She started using AI-powered dashboards to track team performance, and the data was clear: one region was underperforming. The 'cold data' conclusion? This was an under-performing team not focused on delivery. And the 'warm meaning' conclusion? She held skip-level one-on-one conversations with the Director, Team Leaders, and employees, and discovered that the region had lost two key members and was working overtime just to stay afloat. She shifted resources, offered her appreciation to the overwhelmed employees, put well-being supports in place, and helped reset expectations with upper management. Three months later, their performance surged, not because of the dashboard, but because of the human decisions that followed.

OUR HUMANITY WON'T BE AUTOMATED

So what does it actually look like when cold data and warm meaning work together in leadership? It comes down to a simple, but powerful formula: AI + EI = ROI: AI gives you insight, and EQ gives you impact.  

It’s one thing to know what’s happening across your systems, teams, and markets. It’s another to understand how those changes are felt, absorbed, and responded to by real people. While AI can highlight performance dips or flag process gaps, it takes emotionally intelligent leadership to uncover the why behind them, to challenge limiting beliefs that are driving less-than-ideal behaviours, and to navigate the human side of change. 

The return on investment in this equation isn’t just financial, although financial benefits are likely. ROI also shows up in stronger team engagement, faster adaptation to change, higher trust, better retention, and decisions that actually stick because people feel heard, involved, and supported. That’s the kind of return AI can’t fully generate on its own.  

Some AI tools are getting better at mimicking empathy or providing grief support scripts. But let’s not confuse simulation with understanding. Leaders still need to build trust, gauge emotional undercurrents, and respond in the moment to subtle cues that aren’t captured in any dataset. That’s not soft; that’s high-performing leadership. 

If you want to stay future-ready, don’t try to outthink the bots. They can’t lead people with wisdom, presence, and heart. But you can. And that becomes your leadership edge.

THE ART OF TOUGH CONVERSATIONS: Best Practices for Leaders

by Leslie Rohonczy, Executive Coach, IMC, PCC | ©2024 | www.leslierohonczy.com

In the realm of leadership, tough conversations are inevitable. And no matter how high your level of seniority is, the challenging emotions we might experience during these interactions can be uncomfortable. Whether delivering critical feedback, discussing performance issues, or, perhaps most challenging of all, letting someone go, these conversations are an integral part of your leadership accountability.

 As an executive coach, I've helped many leaders navigate the emotional and professional complexities in preparing for challenging conversations. Here are some of the challenges I’ve seen senior leaders wrestle with, and some of the best practices to consider when preparing for tough conversations.

THE CHALLENGES

Emotional Toll | The emotional burden of tough conversations can be significant. Leaders often feel a sense of personal responsibility and empathy towards their employees, making the act of delivering bad news particularly stressful. This emotional toll on the leader can lead to procrastination, avoidance, and increased anxiety. For example, you may hesitate to let an underperforming team member go because you know the individual is going through personal hardships, such as a family illness. Your empathy can make it difficult to separate your personal feelings from your professional responsibilities.

 Maintaining Professionalism | Balancing empathy with professionalism is crucial. Leaders must convey the necessary messages without letting their emotions cloud their judgment or delivery. Striking this balance is often easier said than done, especially when the conversation has significant consequences for the employee. For example, during a performance review, you may feel tempted to downplay negative feedback to avoid hurting the employee’s feelings. However, this could lead to misunderstandings about the seriousness of the issues and hinder the employee's growth.

 Legal and Ethical Considerations | Navigating the legal and ethical implications of difficult conversations, particularly terminations, adds another layer of complexity to an already-challenging discussion. Ensuring the conversation is conducted fairly, respectfully, and in compliance with legal standards is essential to avoid potential repercussions. For example, when terminating an employee, ensure that the specific reasons for termination are well-documented and legally sound to prevent claims of wrongful dismissal or discrimination. This requires careful preparation and adherence to HR policies and legal guidelines.

BEST PRACTICES & ‘TRY-ITS’

Preparation is Key | Thorough preparation is vital for any tough conversation. Leaders should clearly outline the key points they need to convey and reflect on likely potential reactions from the employee. Practicing the conversation beforehand can help in articulating thoughts more clearly and confidently. Try-it: Before a meeting to discuss a significant performance issue, prepare by reviewing the employee’s performance records, noting specific incidents that illustrate the problem, and rehearse how to present this information in a clear, constructive, and respectful way.

 Be Direct but Compassionate | Honesty is crucial, but it must be balanced with compassion. Be direct about the issues at hand, but also express empathy and understanding. This approach helps to respect and maintain the person’s dignity while clearly communicating the necessary message. Clear is kind. Try-it: When informing an employee about their termination, you could say, “This decision was incredibly difficult, and I understand it’s a lot to take in. We’ve seen a consistent pattern in performance that hasn’t improved despite our efforts, and we need to make this change. I’m here to support you through this transition.”

Create a Safe Environment | Conduct the conversation in a private, comfortable setting where the employee feels safe. This environment encourages open communication and helps manage the emotional intensity of the situation. Ensure there are no interruptions and that the focus remains on the conversation topic. Try-it: Schedule the conversation in a private office or a neutral, quiet space where you won’t be interrupted. This setting helps the employee feel respected and ensures the conversation remains confidential.

 Listen Actively | Active listening is a critical skill during tough conversations. Allow the employee to express their thoughts and feelings without interruption. Acknowledge their emotions and show that you value their perspective. This approach fosters a sense of respect and understanding, even in difficult circumstances. Try-it: If an employee reacts emotionally to feedback, you might respond, “I hear that you’re feeling frustrated and upset. Your work is important to us, and I want to understand your perspective. Let’s talk more about what’s been challenging for you.”

 Provide Support and Resources | When letting someone go, offer support and resources to help them through this transition. Support could include outplacement services, references, or guidance on the next steps. Demonstrating your commitment to their well-being, especially through their departure, conveys that you care about them, and that the company is committed to supporting them. Try-it: After informing an employee of their termination, you could offer, “We’ve arranged for outplacement services to help you find your next opportunity. They’ll be really helpful in helping you navigate the next steps to finding the role that’s right for you.”

 Follow Up | After the conversation, follow up with the employee to ensure they are coping well. This could be a brief check-in or offering additional support if needed. For remaining team members, communicate about the change to the team as transparently as possible – while respecting the departing employee’s confidentiality – and address any concerns they might have. This will help you to monitor morale and trust within the team, as forced departures tend to create fear and anxiety in remaining employees. Try-it: A few days after a tough conversation with your employee, reach out to them with an email or call, saying, “I wanted to check in and see how you’re doing. If you need any additional support, please let me know.” And when an employee has been terminated, you can say to the remaining employees, “I want to address the recent changes and reassure you that we are here to support each of you through this transition. I won’t communicate the specific reasons for the departure, because I’m respecting their privacy, but I invite your questions and concerns.”

As a leader, tough conversations are part of your role. Embrace challenging conversations as opportunities to foster growth and resilience within your team and organization and as a leadership development opportunity. These experiences will not only help you strengthen your leadership, but they can help you cultivate a culture of candor and accountability in your organization.