The courage gap: why HR needs a new definition of bravery

Why is courage rising as a leadership theme?

Courage has re-emerged as a central theme in leadership conversations. It appears across leadership development research, HR roundtables and management writing. HR leaders, in particular, are being asked to operate with moral clarity in environments where uncertainty, political sensitivity and competing pressures are routine.

What is changing is not the language but the context. HR is increasingly expected to challenge decisions, surface ethical risk and act as a counterweight to short-term thinking, often without the authority or structural backing to do so safely.

In a white paper last year leadership and career management consultancy 10Eighty noted that courageous integrity is now a core human capability. Yet conversations with senior HR practitioners suggest that courage, in practice, rarely looks like bold gestures. It looks like staying in the room when decisions feel uncomfortable and refusing to soften truths that matter.

This perspective is echoed in leadership scholarship. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Ranjay Gulati argues that courage is not innate. It is a capability built through preparation, practice and support. He describes courage as disciplined rather than dramatic, grounded in clarity of purpose and strengthened through allies and routines rather than instinct. 

Academic voices reinforce this view. John Boudreau, a leading scholar on the future of HR, highlights how unusually malleable the CHRO role remains. Its remit varies widely depending on organisational norms and political context. As he notes, no other executive role carries the same variability. That ambiguity demands courage, particularly when expectations are unclear and influence must be continually negotiated. As Boudreau says: “It takes what we might call courage to step up and exploit or harness that variability and shape the role in a way that makes it more impactful.”

Taken together, these perspectives point to a shared conclusion. Courage is rising as a leadership requirement precisely because the systems surrounding HR do not consistently support principled action.

"We protect relationships at the cost of results. Insight is rarely the issue. Courage is."

Keith Luxon, SVP human resources, Maximus UK

What does courage look like in HR leadership today?

In everyday HR work courage is rarely dramatic. It tends to show up in quiet, grounded decisions about what is acceptable and what is not.

Sue Beavil, global head of learning at Mourant, recalls an early career experience when a caller refused to speak to her because she lacked the professional status they expected. Her manager intervened calmly, telling the caller that the person who could help was the person they had just been extremely rude to. The call ended abruptly but the message was unmistakable. “It was phenomenal support and recognition from my manager of my subject matter expertise, my role in the department, the fact that he regarded this person’s behaviour as inappropriate and called them out in a factual way,” explains Beavil. Courage in that moment was clarity and fairness.

Executive coach Craig Pattison offers a different example. In a former role he worked with a CEO facing allegations of bullying by a high-performing executive. Protecting the individual would have been the easier route given their importance to a major transformation. Instead, “the situation wasn't brushed under the carpet,” says Pattinson. “This exec member was a really key member of the executive team and they had a track record of delivery and being very innovative and creative but the CEO had the courage and integrity to follow through and deal with it in a very humble way.” The issue was addressed swiftly and professionally, with care for those affected but without excusing the behaviour. Courage here looked like acting decisively while holding humanity in view.

Keith Luxon, SVP human resources at Maximus UK, describes the same pattern more bluntly. He argues that HR too often manages around hard truths rather than confronting them. “We say we are strategic but behave like custodians of comfort. We soften messages to avoid offence,” he says. “We protect relationships at the cost of results. Insight is rarely the issue. Courage is.”

Across these examples courage appears as a relational capability. It depends on trust, shared expectations and consistency. People need to know where boundaries sit and believe that leaders will act when values are tested. Courage becomes possible when clarity and psychological safety support moral action.

Gulati’s research reinforces this view. Courageous leaders do not rely on instinct alone. They prepare, build narratives that connect action to purpose and draw on allies who challenge or steady them under pressure. These practices turn courage from a one-off act into a repeatable capability.

Courage in practice also requires judgement under imperfection. Joan O’Connor, head of leadership practice at 10Eighty, notes that the most effective HR leaders are able to hold multiple, sometimes competing perspectives at once. They recognise that decisions are often taken in imperfect conditions and that progress may involve trade-offs.

Where HR frames courage as rigid adherence to principle without acknowledging complexity, it becomes harder to build trust or allies. Where it demonstrates disciplined judgement, it earns influence. 

For HR leaders this matters because courage is rarely visible. It is embedded in how feedback is given, how fairness is upheld and how expectations are enforced. These everyday actions shape what others feel able to do.

Why is the courage gap widening?

The courage gap widens when expectations rise faster than the conditions that enable responsible challenge.

Ambiguity is a defining feature of HR roles. Boudreau observes that some CHROs are central to strategic decision making while others are marginalised. This variability forces HR leaders to continually assert their role in conversations that shape organisational direction.

Evidence also struggles to land. Boudreau notes that HR often has strong data and models, yet decision makers do not always integrate them. The bottleneck is not insight but positioning. HR may not be structurally located where its evidence carries weight. Courage becomes a substitute for influence.

Power dynamics raise the stakes further. Boudreau’s concept of ‘bet-the-badge’ moments captures situations where HR leaders believe holding a principled line could cost them their role. These include forced return-to-office decisions, ethically questionable technology adoption or poorly designed restructures. Such moments should not require exceptional courage. They should sit within normal executive discourse.

Luxon sees the same pattern play out operationally. “HR hampers itself by placing itself in the baggage train rather than the vanguard. Too many teams see their role as support and safety instead of direction and challenge,” he says. “Take absence. HR’s response is often to build more process, policies, triggers and  dashboards. We manage the numbers while avoiding the causes. Poor leadership. Excessive workload. Unsafe culture. We police symptoms instead of confronting design. Absence is not a compliance issue. It is a leadership and system failure. Courage is saying that out loud.”

The emotional and ethical weight of HR decisions compounds the challenge. HR handles issues that affect livelihoods, wellbeing and trust. The moral load of these choices increases the courage required when clarity or backing is absent.

Another factor widening the courage gap is the absence of systemic thinking at senior levels. In her work with HR directors O’Connor observes that many high-stakes decisions are taken in isolation rather than as part of a wider system. Leaders focus on the political, financial or reputational dimension in front of them without fully examining the downstream consequences across people, culture and trust.

When decisions are not grounded in a shared understanding of systemic impact, individuals are left carrying disproportionate risk. Acting with integrity becomes a personal exposure rather than an organisational norm.

Psychological safety also remains uneven. Pattison describes how group dynamics can quickly deteriorate under pressure, requiring someone to intervene even when it feels risky. When systems do not reward principled challenge, courage becomes a personal gamble.

“If it's only ever the HR voice, the risk is – will it be heard?”

Joan O-Connor, head of leadership practice, 10Eighty

Why do courageous intentions fail in organisations?

Courage rarely fails because of weak conviction but because the organisational context makes action too risky or isolating.

Beavil describes courage operating across three layers: individual, team and organisation. Leaders need clarity about expectations, teams need shared understanding of acceptable behaviour and organisations need to reinforce those standards through governance and culture. When these layers are misaligned, individuals are left guessing where boundaries lie.

Boudreau’s ‘bet-the-badge’ insight makes this stark. When HR leaders believe speaking up may cost them their job the system has failed to normalise evidence-based challenge. Courage rises precisely because the structure is weak.

Gulati’s work supports this diagnosis. Courage is built through scaffolding. Without preparation, practice and support the personal cost of doing the right thing becomes disproportionately high.

Isolation is not just structural but also relational. O’Connor argues that courageous intent often fails because HR is left speaking alone. In complex or politically charged environments, a sole HR voice is easier to dismiss, particularly when dominant leaders are uncomfortable with what they hear. “If it's only ever the HR voice, the risk is – will it be heard?” she says. 

The most effective HR leaders, she suggests, actively build coalitions. They help other executives articulate concerns, test assumptions and step forward collectively. This is how principled challenge gains traction inside real organisations.

Group dynamics further narrow the space for courage. O’Connor points to herd mentality as a powerful but under-examined force in executive decision making. When pressure is high and uncertainty chronic, people become less willing to be seen as the outlier. Self-preservation and consensus quietly take precedence over challenge.

In these conditions confidence is easily mistaken for competence and certainty for safety. Courage does not disappear because people lack values. It disappears because the social cost of dissent becomes too high.

This is why organisations need courage infrastructure. It includes clear decision rights, norms that support dissent, collective backing and leaders who model accountability. These conditions shift courage from heroism to expectation.

How is AI changing the courage required of HR?

AI accelerates decisions, increases complexity and introduces new ethical risk. HR sits at the centre of these tensions.

Leaders must challenge assumptions, slow automation where necessary and ensure that human consequences are understood. Governance frameworks remain underdeveloped and decisions often move faster than safeguards.

 Luxon argues that AI will force choices HR has delayed for years. “When managers can get a good enough answer and a solid letter from AI, HR must offer more than a slightly better draft,” he says. “Courage will mean redesigning work and leadership, not just resolving cases.”

Boudreau urges HR leaders not to wait for permission. Showing up early in conversations builds credibility before contentious decisions arise. In the context of AI, presence matters as much as expertise.

AI amplifies the systemic nature of courage. Leaders must balance values, accountability and speed simultaneously. Courage becomes a governance requirement rather than a moral flourish.

HR leaders are being asked to show courage in conditions that are often ambiguous, politically sensitive and ethically demanding. Their courage is real but it should not be a substitute for structure.

As Boudreau argues, organisations need fewer moments where leaders feel they are betting their badge and more conditions where evidence and values can be raised without personal jeopardy. Gulati’s research shows that courage thrives when leaders are supported by clarity, preparation and allies.

Sustained courage without support carries a cost. O’Connor warns that when HR leaders are repeatedly required to carry moral and political risk alone, burnout becomes a predictable outcome. The issue is not resilience. It is exposure.

Building courage infrastructure is therefore not a leadership nice-to-have. It is a prerequisite for retaining credible, values-driven HR leaders over time.

The future of HR depends not on braver individuals but on better systems. Closing the courage gap is part of building organisations capable of acting with integrity in an age of complexity and AI-driven change.