Consequences of velvet glove communication in an organisation

Velvet glove communication, where leaders prioritise a soft, diplomatic approach to delivering messages and managing teams, can create a harmonious and pleasant working environment. But, like any leadership style, it comes with its own set of consequences and hidden costs.

While it is often effective in building trust and maintaining peace, an overreliance on this method can mask deeper issues within the organisation. The consequences, though subtle, can impact not just employee performance but also the bottom line.

The risk of avoiding difficult conversations

In velvet glove communication, leaders tend to emphasise diplomacy, often avoiding conflict or difficult conversations to maintain harmony. While this may keep short-term peace, the long-term consequences can be damaging.

Employees who are underperforming may not receive the honest feedback they need to improve, leading to a culture of mediocrity. When issues are not addressed head-on, problems simmer beneath the surface, creating inefficiency and stalling progress.

Take, for example, WeWork during its early years under Adam Neumann’s leadership. Neumann had a grand vision for the company, but he was also known for surrounding himself with a “yes-man” culture.

Leaders around him avoided confronting the unsustainable growth model, out of fear of disrupting the perceived harmony.

This velvet glove approach to internal communication led to unchecked decision-making, which ultimately contributed to the company’s near-collapse in 2019. The lesson here is that velvet glove communication, when overused, can prevent important issues from being addressed until it’s too late.

Gelles, D., & Yaffe-Bellany, D. (2019, September 18). The Icarus of Silicon Valley: WeWork’s Adam Neumann. The New York Times.

Delayed decision-making

In organisations where the velvet glove method is predominant, decision-making can become sluggish.

Leaders who consistently soften their messages and avoid confrontation may hesitate to make tough, but necessary, decisions. When too much emphasis is placed on maintaining positive relations, critical strategic choices get delayed, sometimes at the expense of the company’s growth or competitiveness.

Consider an organisation where upper management needs to downsize due to financial challenges. If the leadership spends too much time sugar-coating the situation, trying to avoid upsetting employees, the company might delay essential cost-cutting measures.

The result is prolonged financial strain, which could have been mitigated by more decisive, direct action.

Erosion of accountability

While the velvet glove approach fosters a friendly and collaborative atmosphere, it can sometimes lead to a lack of accountability. When employees are not pushed hard enough or confronted with their shortcomings, it becomes easier for them to avoid responsibility. This can result in complacency, where deadlines are missed or goals are not met, but consequences are minimal.

In contrast, a leader who knows when to take off the gloves will push employees to be accountable for their performance, ensuring that everyone is working toward the organisation’s objectives.

When tough feedback is sugar-coated, employees might misunderstand the gravity of their errors, leading to a lack of ownership and ultimately affecting productivity and results.

Hidden costs of low morale

Interestingly, velvet glove communication can also lead to low morale — the very thing it is intended to protect. When leaders are overly cautious in delivering feedback, high-performing employees may become frustrated if they feel underappreciated or that underperformers are not being held to the same standard.

A culture that avoids direct confrontation can breed resentment, where employees who are delivering great work see little differentiation from those who are not pulling their weight.

This was evident in the case of Yahoo! under Marissa Mayer’s leadership. Mayer initially embraced a velvet glove approach in an effort to rejuvenate the company’s culture.

However, the lack of tough conversations with underperformers eventually frustrated top talent, many of whom left the company.

When high achievers feel that their efforts are not being recognised or rewarded, and underperformers are being coddled, they may disengage or leave for organisations with clearer expectations and stronger accountability.Goudreau, J. (2016, February 16).

Communication gaps and misinterpretation

The velvet glove approach also risks creating communication gaps and misinterpretation. Leaders who constantly soften their language to avoid hurting feelings or causing discomfort may inadvertently obscure the message.

Employees might walk away from a conversation thinking they are performing better than they actually are or that their contributions are sufficient when they’re not. In the long run, this leads to confusion and poor alignment with organisational goals.

For example, if a project is behind schedule and the manager frames the delay as a minor issue instead of addressing the real urgency, the team might not understand the need for corrective action. This type of indirect communication can create a false sense of security, delaying improvements and adjustments that need to happen for the company to stay on track.

Emotional exhaustion for leaders

For leaders, using the velvet glove approach can also lead to emotional exhaustion. Constantly walking on eggshells, trying to craft the perfect diplomatic message, and worrying about upsetting the team can become mentally draining.

This burden can prevent leaders from focusing on other critical areas of the business, ultimately affecting their ability to perform effectively. Emotional fatigue can also diminish the leader’s ability to stay consistent in communication, which may lead to inconsistency in enforcing policies and expectations.

When the gloves need to come off

While the velvet glove approach has its benefits in maintaining a positive work culture, sometimes tough love is necessary. Leaders must be able to take off the gloves and address critical issues head-on.

Knowing when to switch between a soft and direct communication style is what separates good leaders from great ones.

There are moments in every organisation where being firm and straightforward is required — whether it’s addressing poor performance, making structural changes, or pushing the team to meet critical deadlines. Elon Musk, for example, has built his career on a no-nonsense, direct communication style.

While this can come off as harsh, his relentless push for excellence has driven innovation and performance at Tesla. Though not everyone appreciates Musk’s approach, it has undeniably yielded results in terms of product innovation and financial success.

Conclusion: Striking the right balance

Velvet glove communication can be a powerful tool for fostering trust, collaboration, and loyalty within an organisation. However, it must be balanced with more direct communication when necessary to ensure accountability, efficiency, and clarity.

Over-reliance on soft communication can lead to hidden costs such as delayed decision-making, eroded accountability, low morale, and emotional exhaustion.

The most effective leaders know when to apply the velvet glove and when to take it off. They understand that to drive results, sometimes difficult conversations need to happen, even if they cause discomfort.

Striking the right balance between empathy and directness is key to fostering a culture that is both supportive and high-performing, ultimately benefiting the organisation’s bottom line.

Tariro Manamike is a seasoned media and public relations professional with over a decade of experience in broadcast journalism and strategic communication. She is passionate about human-centered design, business communication, and their impact on the bottom line. Tariro writes in her personal capacity and can be reached at tarimanamike@gmail.com-ebsinessweekl