3 Conversations We Are Not Having at Work and Why We Need Them |
Take our Ambition Test
Find a career counselor near me
The most important conversations at work are often the ones that don’t happen.
There are three commonly avoided conversations that carry real costs when left unspoken.
When difficult conversations are handled skillfully, they create better outcomes for individuals and teams.
Written in collaboration with Melanie Sodka, capacity management expert and author of Diary of a Functioning Burnout.
In our work with leaders, professionals, and high performers who care deeply about what they do, we listen closely to how people talk about work. What consistently stands out is not what is said, but what is avoided.
Most workplaces are full of meetings, emails, and updates, yet the conversations that would actually improve how people work and how they feel while doing it rarely happen. Instead, people adapt, carry more, stay quiet, and tell themselves this is just how it is. Over time, that silence shows up as burnout, disengagement, and erosion of trust, both in the organization and in oneself.
There are three types of conversations we see people generally avoid. Although there are plenty of topics people don’t like talking about at work, these conversations left unspoken carry a real cost to workplace culture.
Conversation 1: “This Is Not Sustainable”
Many professionals are not struggling because they lack discipline, resilience, or time-management skills. They are struggling because the volume, pace, and emotional load of the work no longer match their capacity. Psychologists often describe this as role overload, when expectations quietly exceed human capacity over time. Instead of naming that mismatch, they internalize it. They say yes, stay late, and absorb temporary demands that quietly become permanent. They develop a pattern of being overworked and underrested.This conversation is avoided because of what it might signal. People fear being seen as less committed, less capable, or not cut out for the role. They genuinely fear reprisal and judgment. For leaders, this conversation is a strategic opportunity that allows for clearer priorities, more honest trade-offs, and better decisions about where energy is actually needed. For individuals, it restores agency. This is not about doing less or finding excuses. It is about doing the work in a sustainable way, so the work gets done and the people stay well while doing it.Two approaches people often find helpful:
Name the pattern, not the pressure – Instead of focusing on how overwhelmed you feel in the moment, anchor the conversation in what you are noticing over time. E.g., “I want to talk about the pace and volume of work I’ve been carrying over the last few months. I’m noticing some patterns that don’t feel sustainable long term.”
Lead with impact, not complaint – Framing the conversation around quality, effectiveness, and outcomes helps others understand that this is about doing good work, not avoiding it. E.g., “I care deeply about the quality of my work, and right now, the current workload is starting to impact how consistently I can deliver at that level.”
Conversation 2: “I Need to Manage Up”
This is the conversation many people feel they are not allowed to have. Not every manager is equipped, supported, or ready to lead people. Managers may be stretched thin, some were promoted without training, and some are navigating pressures their teams never see.
People avoid this conversation because it feels risky. They worry about damaging the relationship, being labeled difficult, or limiting future opportunities. So instead, they adapt, over-prepare, redo work, and spend cognitive and emotional energy trying to anticipate expectations. This kind of invisible labour is expensive, consuming energy that never appears on a workload plan or performance review, and it feels off because it doesn't seem fair or right.
Managing up is often misunderstood as ego stroking or politically self-serving. In reality, it is about clarity, understanding what your manager is accountable for, how decisions are made, and what constraints exist. This might look like asking for clearer priorities, naming trade-offs clearly, or setting boundaries around what can realistically be done well. It is not about calling someone out, but rather working within the reality of the system.When this conversation is avoided, frustration compounds, but when handled with skill and care, trust can increase, and capacity is improved on both sides.Two approaches people often find helpful:
Take our Ambition Test
Find a career counselor near me
Name the work around the work – Instead of talking about tasks or priorities, name the invisible effort that’s been happening behind the scenes. E.g., “I want to talk about the decision-filling, the second-guessing, and the extra checking I’ve been doing, and whether that’s actually the best use of my energy or yours.” This reframes over-functioning as a process issue, not a personal one, and creates shared curiosity instead of defensiveness.
Name what you don’t want this conversation to become – This removes fear before it has a chance to take hold. E.g., “I want to say upfront that this conversation is not about avoiding responsibility. It’s about making sure I’m using my capacity in a way that actually serves the team.”
Conversation 3: “I Am Disconnected From This Work”
Disengagement builds slowly through misalignment, repeated compromise, or work that no longer fits who someone is in this season of their life. People will continue to show up, meet expectations, and remain reliable, but the sense of connection, the part that fuels motivation, begins to erode. This is not a character flaw, but information signaling that something needs attention, whether that is role design, growth opportunities, values alignment, or simply recovery from prolonged strain.
Leaders who are unable to have this conversation often lose people without ever understanding what happened. For individuals, naming disconnection allows for reflection and intentional choice.
Two approaches people often find helpful:
Name the gap rather than the feeling – Instead of leading with emotion, this approach frames disconnection as a misalignment between effort and meaning. E.g., “I’ve been reflecting on the gap between how much energy I’m putting into my work and how connected I feel to it. The gap isn’t a crisis, but it is growing, and I think it’s important for us to talk about.”
Name the change, not the disengagement – This approach names that something has shifted without labeling it as a problem yet. E.g., “I’ve noticed that the way this role fits me has changed over time. I'm noticing some shifts, and I think it would be helpful to think about what that might mean going forward.”
What Leaders May Not Always See
People are not avoiding these conversations because they are weak, entitled, or uncommitted. These conversations are often avoided because the environment doesn’t feel safe enough to have them. If honesty is met with defensiveness, minimization, or subtle penalty, people learn quickly. Staying silent becomes a form of self-protection, and over-functioning becomes the norm. When we normalize conversations about capacity, clarity, and connection, we create conditions where people can do meaningful work without sacrificing themselves in the process.
Difficult conversations are necessary and part of any team or group. Having these important conversations signals that we care. When we handle them with intention, they strengthen engagement, improve productivity, and create workplaces where people want to stay and contribute.
These conversations tend to find their way to the surface eventually. The difference is whether we create space for them early and openly or later, after concerns have accumulated. When we choose to address things earlier, it often makes everything that follows easier for everyone involved.