The Risk of Asking “Do You Smell That?” When There’s No Fire

I was on a call recently when a familiar tension unfolded. One stakeholder quietly suggested replacing a key team member. Another, unaware of this, spoke highly of that very person’s contributions. The conflict was invisible to some, glaring to others. And there I was — caught in the moment, wondering: do I surface this divide now, or let it play out?

That question—whether to speak up or hold back—feels like smelling smoke and deciding if there’s a fire. It’s a dilemma every consultant and leader faces: When do you risk raising a potential problem, and when do you stay silent to avoid stirring panic or creating unnecessary friction?

Smoke Signals in the Room

In this case, the “smoke” wasn’t just interpersonal conflict. It was a subtle but real gap between what different stakeholders knew, felt, and wanted. One saw a problem in the individual; the other saw the same person as an asset. What neither seemed to realize was the bigger, hidden risk — the real fire wasn’t the person’s performance alone, but systemic cracks in how the team was organized and supported.

That’s often the trap. We fixate on the smoke—the visible complaints or conflicts—without seeing the fire beneath: organizational design mismatches, capability gaps, or unclear expectations that set people up to fail or become scapegoats.

When Silence Is Strategy

In that moment, I chose not to call the fire alarm. Instead, I leaned into the quiet work of adjusting conditions: suggesting team realignment, clarifying roles, and proposing targeted support that could close the gaps. I believed the person in question was doing satisfactory work, and that with some reorganization, the team’s collective capability would improve without sacrificing anyone prematurely.

This approach isn’t about ignoring problems. It’s about discerning when the most skilled intervention is not sounding the alarm, but reshaping the environment so the fire can’t spread.

A Practical Framework for Diagnosing the Smoke

How do you tell when a problem is about the individual and when it’s systemic? Here are a few practical markers I’ve learned to watch for:

• Repeated surface complaints with shifting targets. If the focus bounces from person to person or team to team, it’s often a sign the root cause lies deeper.
• Disparities in stakeholder perspectives. When opinions about performance vary widely and no one is fully aligned on expectations, that signals unclear roles or misaligned incentives.
• Patterns of stress around process or resource constraints. If frustration centers on workload, unclear processes, or missing skills, the system—not just the people—is under strain.
• A history of “quick fixes” that don’t stick. If replacing team members has been the go-to solution without addressing underlying issues, it’s time to rethink the structure.

In these cases, working around the problem—through coaching, restructuring, or capability-building—is often more sophisticated than confronting individuals with accusations that miss the bigger picture.

The Consultant’s Double Role: Detector and Protector

This is where consulting gets complicated. We’re expected to detect risks early, point out problems, and guide clients to solutions. But we’re also protectors—of relationships, reputations, and the humans doing the work.

It’s a tightrope walk. Raise every alarm, and you risk sounding the fire drill too often, diluting your credibility. Stay silent too long, and you let small sparks become wildfires, damaging trust and morale.

In my experience, the best leaders and consultants hold this tension deliberately. They become buffers—absorbing the heat of frustration and deflecting blame from individuals to the system. They help clients see the fire they didn’t know was there, and when necessary, prevent unnecessary casualties.

Leading with Diagnostic Skill

The work is ongoing. Developing diagnostic skill—seeing past the obvious solution to the actual problem—takes practice and humility. It requires listening closely, interpreting subtle signals, and understanding organizational dynamics at multiple levels.

Sometimes leadership means asking hard questions quietly, nudging stakeholders toward shared understanding without rattling nerves. Sometimes it means speaking plainly when the smoke is real. But often, it means being the calm in the room, holding the space between management frustration and individual blame.

That day on the call, I chose to hold the tension rather than light the fire. It’s a choice I’ll make again — and one I believe every thoughtful leader must face.