In many workplaces, when something problematic happens, people feel trapped between two options.
- Say nothing and carry the discomfort.
- Call it out publicly and risk escalation.
Neither option captures the full range of what’s possible.
Most relational work happens in the space between those two responses.
The challenge is that tense moments often trigger automatic reactions. Some of us default to silence because we want to preserve relationships or avoid disrupting the room. Others move quickly toward confrontation because the harm feels urgent or familiar to them.
Neither instinct is inherently wrong. But when our responses are automatic, we lose the chance to choose the intervention that best fits the moment.
This is where relational courage comes in.
Relational courage isn’t about avoiding disruption. And it isn’t about always choosing the gentlest response. It’s about staying engaged with the moment long enough to respond intentionally rather than reactively.
In conversations about equity and accountability, people often use the language of calling in, calling on, and calling out* to describe different ways of responding.
- Calling in – Addressing harm with curiosity and care, with the goal of learning, repair, and strengthening the relationship.
- Calling on – Pausing the moment to name a concern and invite reflection, helping the group notice impact.
- Calling out – Publicly naming harmful language or behaviour when impact is significant or safety requires immediate accountability.
These approaches are not a ladder of escalation. They are different tools for different contexts.
Most workplace moments live somewhere between silence and calling out.
Consider a familiar example.
During a team meeting, someone responds to a colleague’s suggestion by saying, “That might be a bit ambitious — maybe we should keep things realistic.”
The comment lands awkwardly. The colleague who proposed the idea goes quiet. A few people shift in their seats. The meeting continues.
Moments like this happen every day.
Often people feel pulled in two directions.
One instinct is to stay silent — to preserve the flow of the meeting and avoid creating tension. Another instinct is to call the comment out directly. But many moments like this live in the space between those two responses.
Someone might pause the conversation and say,
“I’m curious what feels unrealistic about the idea.”
Or they might widen the lens slightly:
“Tell me more about what concerns you about the proposal.”
Or even invite the room back into the conversation:
“I’m interested to hear how this idea is landing for others.”
None of these responses ignore what just happened. But none of them assume the worst about the person who made the comment either.
Instead, the intervention gently reopens the conversation and creates space for reflection.
This kind of response often takes just a few seconds, but it can shift the dynamic of a room.
It signals that ideas deserve consideration. It signals that dismissive moments won’t simply pass unnoticed. And it allows accountability to happen without immediately collapsing the conversation into conflict.
Of course, not every situation allows for this kind of intervention. When harm is repeated, significant, or connected to power dynamics that prevent quieter responses from being effective, stronger disruption may be necessary.
But many everyday workplace moments fall somewhere else on the spectrum – where a pause, a question, or a small interruption can reset the conversation.
What matters most is noticing our instinct in the moment.
Do we default to silence to keep the peace? Do we escalate quickly because the harm feels intolerable?
Relational courage asks something slightly different.
It asks whether we can stay present long enough to choose the response that moves the conversation forward.
Not silence.
Not immediate escalation.
But intentional engagement.
A Small Practice
When a tense moment happens in a meeting or conversation, pause and ask yourself:
What just happened? What impact might that have had on the room? What response would reopen the conversation rather than shut it down?
The goal isn’t to find the perfect intervention.
It’s to stay engaged long enough to choose one.
That’s often where relational courage begins.
-sd
** For more on calling in, calling on, and calling out, see Michelle Cassandra Johnson (2023), We Heal Together: Rituals and Practices for Building Community and Connection.