This Q&A is part of Observer’s Expert Insights series, where industry leaders, innovators and strategists distill years of experience into direct, practical takeaways and deliver clarity on the issues shaping their industries. Sarah Rozenthuler has spent over 15 years helping C-suites navigate the conversations most organizations avoid. Rozenthuler is a Chartered Psychologist, dialogue consultant, author and co-founder of the Purpose Collective. She combines psychological insight with practical tools, drawing on work that spans speaking at the University of Oxford to facilitating dialogue among financial leaders of a global energy company, CEOs in the South Asian not-for-profit sector, and UK NHS professionals.
Her career began in the UK Cabinet Office, where an early encounter with dialogue training revealed a way to unlock collective intelligence and create the conditions for open, constructive exchange—even when stakes are high. That depth of expertise, grounded in theory and real-world application, made her an ideal fit to speak candidly on one of the most critical yet neglected leadership skills: holding a tough conversation without losing trust, clarity or momentum.
Why do so many professionals avoid difficult conversations, even when they know it’s hurting performance?
Difficult conversations threaten the illusion that professionals are in control and that everyone is rational and doing rational things. When tricky topics are discussed, troublesome emotions such as anger flare, making people withdraw, acquiesce or fight. In those moments, we realize that relationships cannot be handled like spreadsheets: they are not ‘things’ to tidy or trade. Difficult conversations are then seen as a risk, not a resource. They could make you look weak, wrong or vulnerable.
But avoiding hard conversations often makes issues fester. Research shows that 70 percent of managers report avoidance, which reinforces a culture of disconnection and mistrust. Most of us haven’t been trained to handle conversation, particularly when the stakes go up. We don’t have the know-how to hold tension without collapsing into control, avoidance or compliance. Instead, we have tit-for-tat exchanges or no conversation at all.
Avoiding difficult conversations isn’t about incompetence. It’s about survival. People are trying to protect themselves inside organizations that reward polite complicity. But the cost is high: burnout, turnover, cynicism and unresolved issues. For better performance, we must cultivate the capacity to stay in the room when it gets uncomfortable. That’s not a soft skill; it’s a critical capacity that might save your team from tanking.
What does a strong “tough talk toolkit” actually look like, and how do you build one?
A strong “tough talk toolkit” isn’t a set of clever phrases or ‘tips and tricks.’ If people feel talked down to with a new technique or slick sentence, it will undermine rather than strengthen an interaction. A toolkit is similar to building muscle by working out: you master it through regular reps. The first tool isn’t something you say, but your ability to remain present when discomfort rises. There are three core components to accomplishing this:
- Emotional regulation: Noticing your nervous system—heart rate, shallow breath, clenched jaw—when a conversation escalates, and pausing rather than powering through. If you don’t tune in to your experience, you’ll become reactive (shoot from the hip, go silent or say ‘yes’ when you mean ‘no’) rather than responsive.
- Relational awareness: Noticing what’s happening with others, versus only paying attention to your feelings. Is the other person shutting down? Deflecting? Stating agreement but sounding resistant? A good toolkit includes skills for naming the dynamic without blame: “I notice we’re skirting around the issue—can we pause and check in on what’s happening between us?”
- Conversational Clarity: Going into the conversation with clear intentions. Think through your opening line and what lies at the heart of the matter. Are you sharing an unwelcome decision that’s already been made, a need for an apology or some other challenge? Now find words to speak to that with clear intent and genuine care.
Once you’ve built your kit, you need to practice. Start in a safe environment, where the stakes aren’t so high. Debrief with a coach or peer. Rehearse out loud. Reflect after tough moments: What worked? What shut things down? This is less about mastering content and more about developing capacity—the ability to stay grounded, connected and courageous when human interactions inevitably get messy.
How has the rise of hybrid work changed the dynamics of high-stakes communication?
Hybrid work has redrawn the communication map and the cues we rely on to navigate difficult conversations. When we’re not in the same room, it’s harder to sense the unspoken: the shift in tone, the micro-expressions, the long pause that says more than words. These subtle signals often tell us when to lean in or back off.
In virtual settings, conversation gets flatter, tighter and more task-oriented. People default to efficiency, not depth. That makes it easy to avoid complexity or park tensions behind postponed meetings or polite emails that leave issues unaddressed.
When the lockdown hit with COVID-19, some clients cancelled working with me as they didn’t feel up to the challenge of having meaningful team discussions online. Others decided to grasp the nettle and, as a result, build competitive advantage. Hybrid working is here to stay, as are the risks and benefits. Misunderstandings compound faster when people are dispersed. The “distance decay” effect means trust erodes more quickly without intentional effort to repair, check in and clarify.
In hybrid work environments, high-stakes communication needs more tending, not less. It calls for more conscious communication: slowing down to connect before diving in, using video when it matters, checking the emotional undercurrent (“Did I get you?”) and explicitly naming what might get missed across the screen.
Hybrid work doesn’t make tough talks impossible, but it makes them easier to delay or avoid—which can be costly. The strongest leaders are the ones who don’t wait for the perfect moment, but who know how to create a safe and brave space even when it’s boxed into a 30-minute Zoom slot.
What are the signs that a company has a culture of avoidance, and what can leadership do to shift it?
Avoidance often manifests in indirect ways: quiet yet persistent resistance, noticeable hesitation, a culture of “yes” that often means “not really,” or a tendency to surface issues only when they’re too big to ignore. Other signs include decisions being delayed, unravelling or endlessly revisited. Feedback is watered down or withheld altogether. Giving challenging feedback, particularly to more senior individuals, is a common area of avoidance. The problem is, we can’t expect people to change their behaviour unless we do our part and help reveal a blind spot.
Meetings feel polite but unproductive. People talk about each other, not to each other. Innovation stalls—not because people lack ideas, but because no one wants to challenge the status quo. One client I worked with lost energy over time as he noticed he was the only one coming up with ideas while team members stayed mute. When we unpacked this together, team members shared that there had been a lack of appreciation for their half-baked ideas, which had put them off sharing more. A little gratitude goes a long way.
To shift what I’ve come to call the ‘avoidance syndrome,’ leaders must go first. This means they set the tone: being open to hearing concerns, being understanding, not blaming when mistakes are made, and being willing to listen not only to certain voices but to a broader range of views. Leaders must also show bravery by naming tensions, inviting disagreement and staying open when things get uncomfortable. It also means fostering a culture of psychological safety so employees know they won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up.
Finally, and crucially, leaders need to ask: “What are we not talking about, and why?” That question, asked regularly and with genuine curiosity, can begin to rewire a culture from cautious silence or hostile debate to honest, constructive conversation. Cultures of dialogue don’t happen by accident. They’re built through trust, repeated practice and leadership that welcomes (not avoids) what’s hard to hear.
In your experience, what’s the difference between a difficult conversation that builds trust and one that breaks it?
The difference often comes down to intention, presence and timing. A difficult conversation builds trust when the other person feels you’re in it with them, not against them. Most people recoil when we set out to win, fix, judge or blame. When we genuinely seek to understand and move forward, the door to dialogue opens. Trust is built when people feel seen, not scrutinized; heard, not handled; cared for, not criticized. Even if the content is tough, care for the person can be palpable.
Conversely, a conversation breaks trust when it feels like a tick-box exercise. When someone delivers feedback as if they’re reading a script, this often results in a shutdown. When managers use the conversation to offload frustration or assert dominance, people leave feeling diminished rather than respected.
Timing matters too. When difficult conversations are delayed too long, the pressure builds and things come out sideways. Frustration and anger are expressed as toxic leakage even without anything being said directly. Team members notice the tight jaw, the furrowed brow, the stressed-out voice. Passive-aggressive remarks (“really?!”) or “just kidding” jokes confuse more than clarify and fracture relationships.
It’s worth noting that it’s not the problem or complexity of an issue that erodes trust; it’s how the situation is handled. Conversations that build trust are rooted in transparency, curiosity and mutual respect. Sharing a hard truth might sting in the moment, but it will leave people feeling stronger, not smaller. Showing up with care and clarity rather than judgment and reactivity shapes the outcome and the relationship constructively, long after the words are spoken.
What’s one common mistake even seasoned managers make in high-pressure dialogues?
One of the most common missteps is listening to fix, not to understand. Even experienced managers, especially under pressure, default to problem-solving mode. They hear a concern and jump straight to action: “Here’s what we’ll do,” “Let me explain,” or “Let’s sort this.” This comes from a good place—wanting progress, wanting to help—but it often bypasses what the moment really calls for: presence.
In high-pressure situations, people want to be met. Think about the team member who comes to you and says, “I’m feeling frazzled.” Trying to speed up this conversation by going in to find a solution often slows it down in the long run. People feel dismissed, so the difficult feeling lingers. Or resentment builds beneath the surface, only to emerge later in quiet quitting or gossipy exchanges with colleagues.
The alternative? Slow the pace, reflect on what you’re hearing, ask clarifying questions and hold the discomfort just a little longer. When you feel the urge to solve, instead, pause and ask yourself: “Have I truly understood what matters here? Or am I trying to move past the discomfort too quickly?” That slight shift can make a big difference.
How do you approach power imbalances in difficult conversations—especially when one party feels they can’t speak freely?
In organizational life, power is always present. The biggest mistake leaders make is pretending it isn’t. Whether it’s hierarchy, identity, history or even personality, these dynamics shape what feels safe to say. If someone senses their honesty could backfire, they won’t speak freely. They’ll self-censor, sidestep or simply go quiet. It’s common to mistake the resulting silence for peace when it’s actually self-protection.
The work starts with the person holding more power to create safety actively. It’s not enough to say, “You can be honest,” or “My door is always open.” You need to show through your response that honesty won’t be punished. That means staying open, even if what’s said is hard to hear and thanking someone for their courage rather than defending your position when discomfort arises.
In a team setting, you could agree on ground rules to help create a more expansive emotional space. “No one gets to be wrong,” “We welcome uncomfortable moments,” or “There’s no such thing as a stupid question” enable team members to speak more freely. The most significant learning often happens when tension arises out of truth-telling.
Naming that power dynamics are in play can also be effective. Even a sentence like, “I realize I’m in a more senior role here—if that makes this conversation harder, I want to acknowledge that and make space for whatever’s true for you,” can shift the atmosphere significantly. Power used well doesn’t silence others. It allows others to speak their truth and helps them along the way.
If you’re on the lower-power side of the equation, it can help to ground yourself beforehand. Get clear on your intention. Choose your timing. Write down your thoughts and what you need to say. Seek an ally so you sense someone has your back and you don’t feel like a lone voice.
What role does emotional intelligence play in preparing for and navigating a high-stakes conversation?
Emotional intelligence isn’t a “nice-to-have” in high-stakes conversations; it’s a necessity. Without it, even the best strategy or script can fall flat.
First, it helps you prepare so you don’t have to repair. Emotional intelligence means knowing your own triggers: the topics, tones of voice, or behaviors that tend to set you off. It’s then about managing yourself if you become activated (wanting to fire back, give the silent treatment or cave in). It means pausing and asking yourself: What am I feeling? What’s underneath that? What outcome do I want here? That self-awareness keeps you from being hijacked by emotion mid-conversation and keeps your thinking-brain going.
Second, it helps you read the room. Emotional intelligence is not just internal; it’s also relational. Can you sense when someone is shutting down, getting defensive, or holding back? Can you adjust your pace, tone, or language to create more space rather than more pressure? Can you bring in whatever’s missing (some warmth, courage, perspective or humility)?
Third, it helps you hold space and stay with the discomfort. High-stakes conversations often stir strong emotions—yours and theirs. Emotional intelligence lets you hold that tension without needing to fix it immediately. You can sit in the heat without making it hotter. You can stay grounded, generous and clear even if things get bumpy.
Sarah Rozenthuler’s most recent book, Now We’re Talking: How to discuss what really matters, has been shortlisted for the 2025 Business Book Award, within the ‘Leadership’ category.
<
