Sandra is renowned for her insightful approach to coaching leaders and leadership teams. With years of experience as an organisational psychologist and master coach, she brings breadth and depth to her work. She combines robust psychological theory with a practical approach to individual and team development.
The term "courageous conversations" has gained traction in organisational settings, and it is a term that sits uncomfortably with me. It tends to describe conversations aimed at addressing sensitive or emotionally charged topics such as power dynamics or conflict. At its core, this well-intentioned idea encourages people to step out of their comfort zones and engage in challenging dialogue that, hopefully, leads to change. While the intentions behind "courageous conversations" are commendable, I believe the concept itself can unconsciously reinforce barriers to meaningful communication.
The problem with "courageous conversations"
The burden of courage
Labelling a conversation “courageous” suggests the need for bravery, which can unconsciously create a sense of dread or fear. It potentially places a heavy emotional burden on participants, framing the interaction as something exceptional rather than a routine part of direct communication. This framing may discourage people from addressing issues, allowing them to escalate into larger problems. Instead of encouraging open dialogue, the concept may create a belief that there is danger in having the conversation, and this must be faced with courage. It can turn a meaningful conversation into a “scary challenge.”
Overemphasis on emotion
"Courageous conversations" often prioritise emotional expression over problem-solving or clarity. While emotions are an important part of any human interaction, an overemphasis on them can lead to conversations that feel cathartic but ultimately unproductive. People may leave the discussion feeling they have "spoken their truth," but without actionable steps, mutual understanding, or meaningful change.
A risk of performative engagement
The term "courageous" can carry a certain moral significance. There is the potential for engagement in such conversations to appear virtuous rather than focused on resolving differences. This can lead to shallow interactions where participants say the "right" things but fail to reflect deeply or take meaningful action.
Implied hierarchy
The framing of "courageous conversations" often assumes an imbalance of power or knowledge: one party is brave enough to confront, and the other is brave enough to listen. This dynamic can make conversations feel adversarial rather than collaborative, where one side is "teaching" or "correcting" and the other is "learning." Such a setup can stifle genuine dialogue and mutual respect.
The case for direct communication and respectful challenge
I am an advocate of direct communication, coupled with a culture of respectful challenge, as it provides a more effective and sustainable way to address difficult topics. Here is why:
Normalising challenging conversations
Direct communication removes the dread of difficult conversations by treating them as a normal and necessary part of human interaction. By framing these discussions as everyday practices rather than extraordinary acts, people become more comfortable addressing issues as they arise. This prevents problems from festering and encourages a proactive, solution-oriented mindset.
Focus on clarity and outcomes
Direct communication prioritises clarity over emotional spectacle. It allows participants to articulate their perspectives, concerns, or disagreements without unnecessary dramatisation. Respectful challenge encourages people to question ideas, behaviours, or assumptions constructively, paving the way for mutual understanding and actionable solutions.
Equality in dialogue
Unlike "courageous conversations," which can imply a hierarchical dynamic, direct communication assumes equality and mutuality between participants. Everyone is responsible for being honest, receptive, and respectful. This shared accountability fosters a sense of mutual respect and ensures that all voices are heard.
Building trust through consistency
A culture of direct communication and respectful challenge builds trust over time. When people experience issues being addressed openly and without fear of blame, shame, or judgment, they are more likely to engage. Trust is the foundation on which authentic relationships are built.
Principles of direct communication and respectful challenge
To move toward direct communication and respectful challenge, we need to adopt some key principles:
Assume positive intent: Start with the belief that the other person is open to dialogue and growth, rather than approaching them with suspicion or hostility.
Be tough on the issue and connected to the person: Clearly articulate the issue or concern, using specific examples where possible. Use “I” rather than “You.” Focus on behaviours, actions, or assumptions rather than attacking someone’s character.
Listen actively: Give the other person space to share their perspective without interruption, blame, shame, or judgment.
Stay solution-focused: End conversations with actionable steps or agreements to ensure progress. Thank the person for their part in the conversation.
Conclusion
While the concept of "courageous conversations" has principled intentions, it risks making meaningful dialogue seem intimidating. A positive alternative lies in fostering a culture of direct communication and respectful challenge, where open dialogue is normalised, clarity is prioritised, and mutuality underpins every interaction. By embracing these principles, we can co-create environments where people feel safe to speak, listen, and grow together without needing to summon courage for every important conversation. True progress does not come from labelling conversations as courageous but from making them an ordinary, effective part of how we communicate every day.
Visit my website for more info!
Read more from Dr. Sandra Wilson
Dr. Sandra Wilson, Business Coach, Mentor and Consultant
With over 35 years experience in organisation development, Sandra is a dedicated researcher of human behaviour both at an individual and systemic level. She defines her work as helping people get out of their own way, passionately believing in the untapped potential and limitless resources within every individual. Her mission is to support people in living richer, more fulfulling lives, both professionally and personally. Sandra works internationally as a consultant, teacher, coach, mentor and supervisor advocating for rigourouse development processes without rigid formulas.
