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