I used to believe my greatest strength as an HR leader was that I was approachable. My door was always open. My tone was warm. My responses were measured. People described me as diplomatic and steady. I wore those adjectives like badges of honor. I thought that was leadership.
What I did not understand at the time was that I had confused approachability with avoidance. I believed that protecting relationships meant minimizing discomfort. I believed that being supportive meant softening hard truths. I believed that if no one left a room upset, I had done my job well. In reality, I was protecting myself from difficult conversations. It took one leader and a very expensive lesson to make me see that clearly.
There was a Senior Director on my client team whom I will call David. He was exceptionally bright, a rare technical thinker with strategic instincts that executives valued. He delivered results. He moved projects forward. On paper, he was a high performer.
Interpersonally, however, his impact was very different. In meetings, he corrected people mid-sentence. He dismantled junior team members’ ideas in ways that felt dismissive rather than developmental. He challenged aggressively but rarely listened. There was no shouting or dramatic conflict. Instead, there was something quieter and more corrosive. People began to shrink.
High performers stopped offering ideas. One asked for a lateral move. Another disengaged visibly. Within a year, three strong team members had left the organization. Engagement scores dipped. Exit interviews hinted at leadership style concerns. Yet no formal complaints surfaced. There was no dramatic escalation that forced intervention. And that is where my failure began.
Instead of addressing the pattern directly with David, I orchestrated what I now think of as a leadership workaround. We moved frustrated employees to other teams. We reframed departures as internal mobility. We hired replacements and told ourselves a fresh start would reset team dynamics. I convinced myself I was solving the issue strategically. In truth, I was managing optics and avoiding discomfort. Within nine months, the cost of turnover, recruitment, and lost productivity approached 250,000 dollars. The cultural cost was even higher.
Eventually, I could no longer justify postponing the conversation. I scheduled time with David and walked him through the behavioral patterns I had observed and the impact they were having on the team. He listened. He grew quiet. Then he asked a question that still stays with me. Why did no one tell me sooner?
That question exposed my blind spot more clearly than any engagement metric ever could. My silence had not protected him. It had denied him the opportunity to grow. My diplomacy had not protected the team. It had denied them psychological safety. My desire to be liked had quietly undermined my responsibility to lead. That day, I understood something uncomfortable. Silence is not kindness. It is cowardice disguised as compassion.
Understanding why these conversations are so difficult requires acknowledging that avoidance is not simply a character flaw. It is biological. Over a century ago, physiologist Walter Cannon (1915) described the fight or flight response, the automatic stress reaction to perceived threat. In early human history, that threat was physical. In modern organizations, it is relational and reputational. When the stakes are high, opinions differ, and emotions are involved, the amygdala activates. Heart rate increases. Defensiveness rises. Risk tolerance drops. We either confront too aggressively or retreat into polite silence.
For HR leaders, retreats often look professional. It sounds like patience. It feels strategic. In reality, it is frequently fear. To lead effectively, we must move conversations out of survival mode and into intentional dialogue. Structure helps. Frameworks do not eliminate discomfort, but they prevent emotion from hijacking clarity.
Radical Candor
One of the most transformative models for me came from Kim Scott’s (2019) Radical Candor. Her framework maps feedback along two axes: caring personally and challenging directly.
When we care but fail to challenge, we fall into what she calls ruinous empathy. This is where I was operating. Ruinous empathy feels generous. You hesitate to wound. You delay hard feedback because you do not want to demotivate someone. You hope self-awareness will eventually emerge on its own. The long-term impact, however, is the opposite of generous. Performance declines quietly. Resentment builds among peers. The individual remains unaware of the behavioral gap that is limiting their effectiveness.
On the other extreme lies obnoxious aggression, direct challenge without care. This approach may produce short-term compliance, but it erodes trust. People adjust their behavior to avoid punishment rather than to pursue growth.
Radical candor sits in the narrow but powerful space where both care and courage coexist. It sounds like this.I value your contribution, and I need to share how your current approach is affecting the team. Directness is not a threat, but an investment.
STATE Model
Another influential structure comes from Patterson et al. (2022). Their STATE model provides a disciplined way to communicate without triggering defensiveness.
First, share your facts. Observable, verifiable data anchors the conversation in reality. Instead of saying you are careless with deadlines, you say the last two reports were submitted three days past the agreed timeline. Facts are harder to dispute than character judgments.
Next, tell your story. Clarify your interpretation while owning it as a perspective rather than the truth. For example, I am concerned this pattern could affect client trust. This signals transparency rather than accusation.
Then ask for their path. Invite their view genuinely. What is happening from your side? This step often reveals competing priorities or structural constraints that were invisible from your vantage point. Talk tentatively. Replace absolute statements with language that signals openness. It seems that I may be missing something. That communicates humility without sacrificing clarity.
Finally, encourage testing. Ask if you are off base. When leaders invite challenge, they model psychological safety in action rather than theory.
Situation Behavior Impact Model
For precision in feedback delivery, the Situation Behavior Impact model developed by the Center for Creative Leadership (2025) has also shaped my approach. The structure is simple but powerful.
You anchor the feedback in a specific situation. In yesterday’s client presentation. You describe observable behavior. You interrupted the client twice while they were outlining concerns. Then you articulate impact. The client became defensive and we missed critical feedback.
This method eliminates vague generalizations. It keeps feedback behavioral rather than personal. It shifts the focus from identity to impact.
The Emotional Layer & Psychological Safety
Frameworks provide scaffolding, but the emotional layer is where courage lives. In practice, I have learned to name the discomfort at the start of difficult conversations. Acknowledging that the discussion matters because the relationship matters lowers threat. I have learned to position myself psychologically on the same side as the other person. It is not you versus me. It is us versus the problem.
I enter conversations assuming positive intent. Most professionals want to succeed. When you approach someone as a partner rather than a prosecutor, tone and outcome shift dramatically. I have also learned to tolerate silence. After sharing impact, pause. Growth often begins in the quiet space where someone processes feedback. Filling that silence typically serves the speaker’s anxiety, not the listener’s development.
Beyond ethics and emotional intelligence, there is a clear business case for courage. Research from Gallup (Asplund & Blacksmith, 2011) indicates that organizations focused on meaningful feedback and strengths based development experience 14.9 percent lower turnover. Engagement does not thrive in comfort alone. It thrives in clarity. Amy Edmondson (2018), in The Fearless Organization, describes how teams high in psychological safety outperform because members feel safe surfacing concerns early. Psychological safety is not the absence of tension. It is the presence of trust within tension.
On another note, research from CPP, Inc (2008) shows that managers spend nearly 2.8 hours per week dealing with unresolved conflict. Avoidance does not save time. It compounds cost. A difficult conversation is not an act of hostility. It is an invitation to alignment. When we avoid these conversations, we are not being nice. We are prioritizing our temporary comfort over someone else’s growth and over the organization’s health. The most humane act in leadership is timely, respectful honesty.
I no longer measure my effectiveness by how peaceful my calendar appears or how rarely tension surfaces. I measure it by whether the right conversations are happening at the right time with the right level of clarity. The day I stopped trying to be liked was the day I began to lead.
Stop being nice. Start being kind.
About the Author
Moumita Choudhury is a strategic Human Resources and Organizational Development leader with global experience. She partners with organizations to align people strategy with business priorities, enhance organizational efficiency, coach senior leaders, drive culture transformation, and reimagine systems for lasting impact. As the Founder of E3 Consulting LLC, she provides HR advisory and coaching services that unlock both individual and organizational potential.
More From The Humans of HR
References
Asplund, J., & Blacksmith, N. (2011). The Secret of Higher Performance. Gallup. Gallup.Com. https://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/147383/Secret-Higher-Performance.aspx
Cannon, W. B. (1915). Bodily changes in pain, hunger, fear and rage: An account of recent researches into the function of emotional excitement. D Appleton & Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/10013-000
Center for Creative Leadership. (2025). Use Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI)™ to understand intent. https://www.ccl.org/articles/leading-effectively-articles/closing-the-gap-between-intent-vs-impact-sbii/
CPP, Inc. (2008). Workplace conflict and how businesses can harness it to thrive: CPP global human capital report. CPP, Inc. https://www.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/f39a8b7fb4fe4daface552d9f485c825.ashx
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Patterson, K., Grenny, J., McMillan, R., & Switzler, A. (2022). Crucial conversations: Tools for talking when stakes are high (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Scott, K. (2019). Radical candor: Be a kick-ass boss without losing your humanity (Rev. ed.). St. Martin’s Press.