Are You Hiring for Emotional Intelligence — or Emotional Avoidance?
John Elliott • March 24, 2025

Emotional intelligence is one of the most valued traits in executive leadership today.


It’s also one of the most misunderstood.


In interviews, every candidate knows how to speak about empathy, collaboration, and “bringing people on the journey.”
But when does that emotional intelligence start to look more like emotional avoidance?


If you’re hiring into a senior role in consumer goods or food and beverage manufacturing, this distinction matters.


Hiring someone who avoids hard conversations risks building a culture that performs around problems, not through them.

The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2025 understand how to build trust and rapport — without dodging the accountability that comes with real leadership.


Emotional Intelligence: What It Gets Right


In complex, fast-paced industries like FMCG and food production, leaders need more than technical expertise.

They must influence, de-escalate tension, manage change, and build alignment across functions.

That’s where emotional intelligence shines.


High-EQ leaders are more likely to:


  • Retain talent through strong, trust-based relationships
  • Remain composed in high-stakes environments
  • Reduce conflict through proactive, clear communication
  • Drive psychological safety while still pushing for results

The research backs this up. According to a 2024 EHL Insights report, emotionally intelligent leaders improve employee satisfaction, engagement, and collaboration — all essential in manufacturing settings where coordination between departments is critical.

But there’s a fine line between emotional intelligence and emotional overcorrection.


When Emotional Intelligence Becomes Emotional Avoidance


The risk is subtle: leaders who over-index on empathy may begin to avoid the discomfort of conflict altogether.

That looks like:


  • Letting underperformance linger to “keep the peace”
  • Over-relying on collaboration instead of making firm decisions
  • Avoiding direct feedback
  • Prioritising harmony at the expense of clarity

A 2024 Forbes article described how emotionally avoidant leaders — despite good intentions — often undermine the very culture they’re trying to protect. Accountability erodes, decisions slow down, and high performers become disengaged.


We’ve seen this play out in executive search mandates across the sector. On paper, a candidate may appear ideal: emotionally intelligent, highly personable, well-liked. But dig deeper, and a pattern emerges — reluctance to address performance issues, vague language around past team challenges, and a track record of avoiding direct confrontation.


That’s not emotional intelligence. That’s fear, dressed as empathy.


Emotional Intelligence Is a Must — But It’s Not the Full Picture


More organisations are making emotional intelligence a key leadership trait in hiring — and for good reason.
In high-change environments, emotionally intelligent leaders:


  • Build trust across teams quickly
  • Navigate transformation without losing people along the way
  • Stay composed under pressure
  • Handle interpersonal complexity with clarity

But some of the most costly mis-hires we see come from leaders who present as highly empathetic, but struggle to lead through tension.

Not because they lack EQ — but because they confuse it with keeping everyone comfortable.


The difference?


The leaders delivering the best outcomes in 2024 and 2025 are doing both:

  • Holding people accountable while building engagement
  • Delivering hard feedback without defensiveness
  • Balancing calm with courage

These are the leaders who retain high performers, protect standards, and still earn trust across the business.


Hiring Outcomes Are Better When EQ Is Tested in Context


The most effective hiring processes we’re seeing in the market today aren’t just asking,
“Is this leader emotionally intelligent?”

They’re asking:

  • Can this person hold accountability and empathy at the same time?
  • Have they delivered under pressure without letting performance slide?
  • Do they create safe cultures that are also high-performing?

The difference in outcomes is clear:

  • More resilient leadership teams
  • Better cultural fit
  • Fewer surprises post-placement


What to Look for in Executive Interviews

Hiring emotionally intelligent leaders isn’t just about what they say — it’s about how they’ve acted in real moments of challenge. The most effective hiring panels are getting beyond rehearsed narratives by asking sharper questions:


To probe real emotional intelligence:

  • “Tell me about a time you had to lead a team through a change that wasn’t popular.”
  • “How do you approach a conversation when someone on your team is underperforming?”
  • “Describe a time you disagreed with your CEO or board. What did you do?”

Watch for signals:

  • Are they clear and specific, or vague and diplomatic?
  • Do they show respect and resolve?
  • Do they accept responsibility, or redirect it elsewhere?

In reference checks, ask:

  • “How did they manage pressure or uncertainty?”
  • “Were they able to deliver difficult feedback directly?”
  • “Did they avoid difficult decisions in the name of team cohesion?”

When emotional intelligence is genuine, it shows up in results — not just relationships.


Why This Matters Now

Organisations in the consumer goods and food manufacturing sectors are undergoing constant disruption — from digitisation to regulatory shifts to cost pressures. In this environment, leadership soft skills aren’t optional.

But it’s not enough to hire likeable leaders.
The ones delivering real impact are those who bring empathy and edge.
They’re able to sit with discomfort, hold the mirror up, and still bring people with them.

That’s what true emotional intelligence looks like in 2025.


So when you’re hiring your next senior leader, don’t just ask if they care.
Ask if they can care and confront — with courage, with clarity, and with conviction.


Because your culture doesn’t need more harmony.
It needs more truth.

A group of business people are walking in front of a city skyline.
By John Elliott July 18, 2025
Australia’s FMCG sector is confronting a leadership crisis. CEO turnover is accelerating, succession pipelines are underdeveloped.
By John Elliott June 26, 2025
You don’t hear about it on the nightly news. There’s no breaking story. No panic. No protests. Just rows of vegetables being pulled out of the ground with no plan to replant. Just farmers who no longer believe there’s a future for them here. Just quiet decisions — to sell, to walk away, to stop. And if you ask around the industry, they’ll tell you the same thing: It’s not just one bad season. It’s a slow death by a thousand margins. 1 in 3 growers are preparing to leaveIn September 2024, AUSVEG released a national sentiment report with a statistic that should have set off alarms in every capital city: 34% of Australian vegetable growers were considering exiting the industry in the next 12 months. Another one-third said they’d leave if offered a fair price for their farm. Source: AUSVEG Industry Sentiment Report 2024 (PDF) These aren’t abstract hypotheticals. These are real decisions, already in motion. For many, it’s not about profitability anymore, it’s about survival. This isn’t burnout. It’s entrapment. Behind the numbers are people whose entire identity is tied to a profession that no longer feeds them. Many are asset-rich but cash-poor. They own the land. But the land owns them back. Selling means walking away from decades of history. Staying means bleeding capital, month by month, in a system where working harder delivers less. Every year, input costs rise, fuel, fertiliser, compliance. But the farmgate price doesn’t move. Or worse, it drops. Retail World Magazine reports that even though national vegetable production increased 3% in 2023–24, the total farmgate value fell by $140 million. Growers produced more and earned less. That’s not a market. That’s a trap. What no one wants to say aloud The truth is this: many growers are only staying because they can’t leave. If you’re deep in debt, if your farm is tied to multi-generational ownership, if you’ve invested everything in equipment, infrastructure, or land access, walking away isn’t easy. It’s a last resort. So instead, you stay. You cut your hours. Delay maintenance. Avoid upgrades. Cancel the next round of planting. You wait for something to shift, interest rates, weather, prices and you pretend that waiting is strategy. According to the latest fruitnet.com survey, over 50% of vegetable growers say they’re financially worse off than a year ago. And nearly 40% expect conditions to deteriorate further. This isn’t about optimism or resilience. It’s about dignity and the quiet erosion of it. Supermarkets won’t save them, and they never planned to In the current model, supermarket pricing doesn’t reflect real-world farm economics. Retailers demand year-round consistency, aesthetic perfection, and lower prices. They don’t absorb rising input costs, they externalise them. They offer promotions funded not by their marketing budgets, but by the growers’ margins. Farmers take the risk. Retailers take the profit. And because the power imbalance is so deeply entrenched, there’s no real negotiation, just quiet coercion dressed up as "category planning." Let’s talk about what’s actually broken This isn’t just a market failure. It’s a policy failure. Australia’s horticulture system has been built on: Decades of deregulated wholesale markets Lack of collective bargaining power for growers Retailer consolidation that has created a virtual duopoly Export-focused incentives that bypass smaller domestic producers There’s no meaningful floor price for key produce lines. No national enforcement of fair dealing. No public database that links supermarket shelf price to farmgate return. Which means growers, like James, can be driven into loss-making supply contracts without ever seeing the true economics of their product downstream. But the real silence? It’s from consumers. Here’s what no one wants to admit: We say we care about “buying local.” We say we value the farmer’s role. We share those viral posts about strawberries going unsold or milk prices being unfair. And then we complain about a $4 lettuce. We opt for the cheapest bag of carrots. We walk past the "imperfect" produce bin. We frown at the cost of organic and click “Add to Cart” on whatever’s half price. We’re not just bystanders. We’re part of the equation. What happens when the growers go? At first, very little. Supermarkets will find substitutes. Importers will fill gaps. Large agribusinesses will expand into spaces vacated by smaller players. Prices will stay low, until they don’t. But over time, we’ll notice: Produce that travels further and lasts less. Fewer independent growers at farmer’s markets. Entire regions losing their growing identity. National food security becoming a campaign promise instead of a reality. And when the climate throws something serious at us, drought, flood, global supply shock, we’ll realise how little resilience we’ve preserved. So what do we do? We start by telling the truth. Australia is not food secure. Not if 1 in 3 growers are planning to exit. The market isn’t working. Not when prices rise at the shelf and fall at the farmgate. The solution isn’t scale. It’s fairness, visibility, and rebalancing power. That means: Mandating cost-reflective contracts between retailers and suppliers Enabling collective bargaining rights for growers Building transparent data systems linking production costs to consumer prices Introducing transition finance for smaller producers navigating reform and climate pressure And holding supermarkets publicly accountable for margin extraction But more than anything, it means recognising what we’re losing, before it's gone. Final word If you ate a vegetable today, it likely came from someone who’s considered giving up in the past year. Not because they don’t care. But because caring doesn’t pay. This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about sovereignty, over what we eat, how we grow it, and who gets to stay in the system.  Because the next time you see rows of green stretching to the horizon, you might want to ask: How many of these fields are already planning their last harvest?