By Deep Work Club · Last updated: August 2026 · 8 minute read

Someone on your team has been underdelivering for weeks. You know it. You mentioned it once, in passing. And you have since had the conversation three times in your head and zero times with the person. This article explains why that happens, what it costs, and what to do first. It draws on episode 4 of the Deep Talk podcast (Spotify) with Lea Mersch, psychologist and psychotherapist, and Till Westermann.

Key takeaways

• Silence is almost never indifference. It is self-protection, misplaced care, or fear.

• Three mechanisms explain the pattern: cognitive dissonance, social identity, and diffusion of responsibility.

• Your silence is not invisible. The other person notices it and usually interprets it negatively.

• In Germany, Gallup reports only 9 percent of employees are highly engaged and 78 percent are doing the minimum. Gallup names leadership quality as the main driver.

• Two things that work today: separate fact from story, and ask whether the problem is skill or will.

Why leaders avoid difficult conversations

The common explanation is wrong. It is rarely that the problem does not matter. It is that the conversation threatens your image of yourself. Three social-psychological mechanisms interlock here.

Lea traces it back to the attachment the conversation appears to put at risk:

"My worry is: if I raise this, the bond breaks. That is the origin of our conflict avoidance."
— Lea Mersch, Deep Talk episode 4

Cognitive dissonance

Leon Festinger described in 1957 the discomfort that arises when two contradictory beliefs are held at once. In leadership it sounds like this: "I am a good manager who cares about people" alongside "I now have to say something that could hurt."

The system resolves the contradiction, but not by having the conversation. It resolves it through rationalisation: she has a lot on her plate right now, next month is a better time, maybe it sorts itself out. The dissonance disappears. So does the clarity.

Social identity and the fear of not being liked

Henri Tajfel and John Turner showed in 1979 how strongly self-image depends on the group we want to belong to. As a leader you belong to the group of good managers. The critical conversation threatens that, because you do not know how the other person will react.

Lea describes this from her own start in coaching: she could barely confront anyone, out of concern that the relationship would not survive it. Till places himself similarly and names what helps:

"If I can set the frame and say: this is about a specific thing, not about you as a person, then it doesn't feel quite so personal to me. Then it almost works."
— Till Westermann, Deep Talk episode 4

Diffusion of responsibility

Bibb Latané and John Darley showed in 1968 that people feel less individually responsible the more others are present. In organisations, responsibility diffuses not only across people but across processes and dates: HR should raise it, the annual review is coming, my manager knows about it.

This is where a structural problem shows itself. Saving criticism for the half-year review means addressing a situation months later that nobody remembers precisely. Feedback becomes the exception and stays negatively loaded.

What your silence does to the other person

People in teams read non-verbal signals well. They notice when something is being held back. Lea puts it plainly: you have antennae telling you something is going on, and nobody will say what.

Whatever is missing gets filled in by interpretation, usually the unkind kind: I am not important enough. I am not being developed here. Something is wrong and nobody is telling me. Till states the consequence without drama:

"In the end it's unfair to both sides. You don't give the person any chance to improve, because you aren't being transparent."
— Till Westermann, Deep Talk episode 4

What silence costs: the numbers

Gallup's Engagement Index Germany 2024 reports 9 percent of employees as highly emotionally engaged, the lowest value since 2001. 78 percent are doing the minimum required. Gallup puts the macroeconomic cost at 113 to 135 billion euros per year, and names the main driver as leadership quality rather than pay or benefits.

Closer to the reality of smaller companies are the Personio figures:

So barely more than a third of small and medium companies hold regular performance conversations. And close to every second person loses trust in their manager when feedback fails to arrive. Not loudly. Quietly. And then they leave.

One figure deserves care, because it is frequently misquoted: in Gallup's Q2 2025 US survey (n = 17,660), only 47 percent strongly agreed that they know what is expected of them at work. That is a US number, not a German one. It remains useful all the same. Before holding someone accountable for an outcome, it is worth asking whether the expectation was ever actually clear.

What the silence does to you

This dimension rarely appears in studies. The conversation you are not having is having you. Every time you see the person. Every time you prepare a meeting.

Organisational consulting has a term for it: conversation debt. Like financial debt, a small amount is manageable. Ignored, the interest compounds. Here the interest is missed deadlines, rising tension, and frustration on both sides. Research on silence in organisations by Frances Milliken and Elizabeth Morrison has described this effect since the early 2000s.

And then there is the observation nearly every leader shares: the moment the conversation finally happens is almost always lighter than the weeks before it.

Two tools for the first step

1. Separate fact from story

Ten minutes, pen and paper, two columns. Left: what do I know for certain? The document was due Tuesday. It is Thursday. No response. Right: what am I telling myself? She doesn't care. He doesn't want to grow. She is doing this deliberately.

The reason this works is the fundamental attribution error, described by Lee Ross in 1977: we explain other people's behaviour through their character and our own through circumstances. "The expectation may have been unclear" quietly becomes "she is unreliable." The story, not the facts, sets the tone of your conversation, often before it starts.

Do this before the conversation, not during it.

2. Ask yourself: skill or will?

A single distinction that changes everything. Skill means the person lacks knowledge, clarity or resources. Perhaps the expectation was not explicit, perhaps the task is new. Will means the capability is there but energy, commitment or alignment are missing.

The answer determines the posture you bring, and therefore what you are able to hear once you are in the room. If it is a skill problem, your job is enablement, not criticism.

Frequently asked questions

Why do leaders avoid difficult conversations?
Mostly out of self-protection rather than indifference. Three mechanisms interlock: cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), concern for one's self-image as a good leader (social identity theory, Tajfel and Turner, 1979), and diffusion of responsibility onto processes and dates (Latané and Darley, 1968).

What does avoiding a difficult conversation cost?
At company level, Gallup puts the cost of missing engagement in Germany at 113 to 135 billion euros annually. At team level, Personio reports that 45 percent of employees lose trust in their manager when feedback fails to arrive.

How do I know whether it is a skill or a motivation problem?
Ask whether the person could complete the task under ideal conditions. If knowledge, clarity or resources are missing, it is a skill problem and your job is enablement. If capability and clarity are present, the conversation is about motivation instead.

How do I prepare for a difficult conversation with an employee?
Write two columns: what is fact and what is your interpretation. Decide for yourself whether this is skill or will. Then set a frame: a dedicated slot, one to one, not in passing.

How often should feedback happen?
Considerably more often than once or twice a year. Long intervals mean feedback refers to situations nobody remembers precisely. Frequency also keeps feedback from appearing only when something goes wrong, which is what makes it feel punitive.

Is this different in startups than in large companies?
Partly. Small teams have more informal exchange. At the same time, individual contributors move into leadership roles very quickly and take on people responsibility without ever having learned how to give feedback. The need is larger, not smaller.

In summary

The silence has good reasons. It is human, explainable and well researched. That is the encouraging part: what you can name, you can interrupt.

The line that stays from this episode: clarity is not an attack, and silence is not care.

A question for this week: is there someone on your team you are staying silent with, and have you honestly checked whether it is skill or will?

How to actually run the conversation is covered in the follow-up: radical candor and the SBI model. And if you would rather work through these situations with other leaders than alone: how the Deep Work Leadership Circle works. Related: psychological safety in high performing teams.

The full episode: Deep Talk episode 4, Why We Avoid the Difficult Conversation, with Lea Mersch and Till Westermann. This is a German-language podcast.

Sources

• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

• Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Bystander Intervention in Emergencies: Diffusion of Responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

• Ross, L. (1977). The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220.

• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

• Milliken, F. J., & Morrison, E. W. (2003). Shades of Silence. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1563–1568.

• Gallup (2025). Engagement Index Germany 2024. Gallup GmbH, Berlin.

• Gallup (2025). Q2 2025 U.S. Employee Survey, n = 17,660.

• Personio (2025). Workforce Pulse 2025. Censuswide, n = 6,001 employees and 3,003 HR decision makers across DE, UK, ES, NL.

• Personio / TH Köln / Workfive (2025). HR-Radar 2025, n = 600+ HR leads in SMEs.

• Deep Talk Podcast, episode 4: Why We Avoid the Difficult Conversation (10 August 2026), Deep Work Club.