Friction-Free Isn’t the Same as Growth
At this month’s Roundtable, as the stories unfolded, the connective tissue became impossible to ignore.
We began with familiar examples.
One HR leader described restructuring an organization with a volunteer base averaging 69 years old and staff in their 30s and 40s. The instinct in that kind of generational spread is often to smooth it over — soften messaging, reduce pushback, avoid discomfort. But growth in that setting requires honest tension: naming what must change while honoring what came before.
Another leader wrestled with recognition — plaques vs. digital points vs. immediate public affirmation. We know generational preferences differ. But if we endlessly customize recognition to avoid dissatisfaction, do we risk shifting it from earned acknowledgment to expected accommodation?
How do we design systems that support inclusion while still cultivating resilience — the ability to tolerate delay, ambiguity, and uneven affirmation without disengaging?
A senior leader questioned why so much feedback is now expected. Frequent feedback can accelerate development. But it can also create dependency. At what point does support become insulation from self-direction?
All valid concerns.
But underneath each example was the same tension:
Different expectations about how much friction growth should require.
Some professionals now enter the workplace expecting:
Clear criteria
Immediate feedback
Visible pathways
Psychological safety from the outset
Psychological safety matters — especially for those shaped in more relational, feedback-rich environments.
But psychological safety is not the same as psychological comfort.
Growth still requires:
Ambiguity
Correction
Delayed recognition
Authority that doesn’t immediately bend
If we remove all friction in the name of safety, we risk producing professionals who are affirmed but underdeveloped.
If we defend friction without discernment, we produce burnout and distrust.
The leadership challenge isn’t choosing one model over the other.
It’s learning to distinguish between:
Friction that builds capacity
Friction that erodes dignity
Many of the leaders in our Roundtable weren’t trying to eliminate friction because they’re weak.
They’re tired.
They’re navigating change, economic pressure, AI acceleration, and generational complexity — often at the same time.
Smoothing friction can feel like mercy.
Holding it can feel risky.
If you are trying to discern which tensions to reduce and which to hold, you are not alone.
That is the work of leadership right now.
We don’t need less generational tension.
We need better discernment.
And that conversation is just beginning.
Let’s keep discerning together,
Mary