Why You Should Be Hiring Leaders Who Embrace Discomfort
John Elliott • April 6, 2025

Comfort has become the silent killer of executive performance.


In an era defined by disruption, volatility, and shrinking margins, too many leadership teams are still optimising for control, not adaptability. They talk about transformation, but build cultures of stability. They prize clarity, yet avoid the ambiguity where real growth lives.


The problem isn’t capability. It’s discomfort intolerance.

The solution? Start hiring and promoting leaders who deliberately seek discomfort—not just those who can tolerate it when it arrives.


Growth Mindset Isn’t Enough Anymore

You’ve heard the term "growth mindset" countless times. It’s become a leadership cliché. But it’s not wrong—it’s just incomplete.

A growth mindset says, "I believe I can learn."


Discomfort-driven leadership says,
"I will actively seek out the hardest experiences because that’s where I’ll grow fastest."

The distinction matters.


Leaders with a growth mindset tend to thrive when external change forces them to adapt. But leaders who embrace discomfort create those conditions on purpose. They invite hard feedback. They question their own success. They take action before external pressure arrives.


According to a 2023 study by Deloitte, only 22% of executives say their leadership team is “very prepared” for the future—despite record spending on transformation programmes (Deloitte Human Capital Trends, 2023). That gap exists because most teams are trained to manage change, not lead into uncertainty.


Ask yourself: Are you hiring leaders who wait for disruption—or ones who walk towards it?


Discomfort Is the Driver of Strategic Advantage


Companies don’t fall behind because they make bad decisions. They fall behind because their leaders avoid the hard ones.

In high-stakes industries like FMCG, where regulatory pressure, margin compression, and shifting consumer loyalty are accelerating, comfort is dangerous. It fosters:


  • Short-termism

  • Decision paralysis

  • Lack of innovation

  • Cultural stagnation

McKinsey found that organisations with a strong tolerance for ambiguity—where leaders frequently challenge their own assumptions—are 2.4x more likely to be top-quartile performers on total shareholder returns (McKinsey & Company, 2022).

In other words: embracing discomfort isn’t a trait—it’s a multiplier.


Let’s take an example. When COVID hit, Lion Brewery—one of Australia's largest beer producers—was forced to rethink logistics and supply overnight. But smaller craft breweries who had already diversified through direct-to-consumer models adapted faster. Why? Their founders had already been operating in discomfort. They were trained for volatility.


What Discomfort-Driven Leaders Actually Do Differently


You can spot these leaders. They don’t always look like the most confident in the room—but they’re always the most effective in a storm.

They:


  • Seek feedback from critics, not fans

  • Prioritise strategy over popularity

  • Tackle underperformance head-on—even if it means conflict

  • Ask hard questions that slow down groupthink

  • Regularly step out of their functional lane to challenge assumptions

They also act. Not rashly—but decisively.


In a recent Australian Institute of Company Directors (AICD) survey, directors ranked “resilience and adaptability” as the #1 trait they now seek in new appointments—outranking experience for the first time (AICD, 2024).

That’s not a trend. It’s a shift in what leadership now demands.


The Real Cost of Hiring for Comfort


Not hiring discomfort-driven leaders isn’t just a missed opportunity—it’s a risk.


Here’s what it’s costing you:

  • Strategic Drift: Without challenge, strategies become stale. Your team optimises yesterday’s model.

  • Talent Exodus: Top performers disengage when they see leadership avoiding tough calls.

  • Innovation Bottlenecks: Safe cultures don’t take smart risks. New ideas die in committee.

  • Crisis Fragility: Leaders who haven’t been tested won’t perform when stakes are high.

Bain & Company found that companies with decision-making cultures built around speed and tension—not consensus—were 95% more likely to deliver sustained value creation (Bain, 2023).


Ask yourself: Is your executive team equipped for bold calls—or just built for calm waters?


How to Identify Discomfort-Driven Leaders in Interviews


Everyone talks a good game in interviews. But few have the scar tissue that comes from operating in real discomfort. The trick is to go beyond surface-level success stories.

Here’s how:

Ask Better Questions:

  • “What’s the most uncomfortable decision you’ve made in the last 12 months—and how did it play out?”

  • “Tell me about a time you got strong pushback from your team. What did you do?”

  • “What’s a belief you held strongly that you’ve now abandoned?”

  • “When have you chosen a path that was harder in the short term, but better long term?”

Look for:

  • Specificity (vagueness = theory, not lived experience)

  • Self-awareness without self-promotion

  • Signs of humility: they talk about learning, not just winning

  • Evidence of risk-taking: role changes, cross-functional moves, or failed experiments

Pro tip:  Ask referees how the leader handles ambiguity. Not just performance. This will tell you more about how they lead under pressure.


What to Do Now: Practical Actions for Executive Teams


If you want to build a leadership culture of discomfort, you have to engineer it. It won’t happen organically in high-performing, risk-averse teams. Here’s how to start:

  1. Audit Your Current Team: When was the last time each leader took on something that scared them?

  2. Rethink Talent Criteria: Shift from stability and experience to adaptability and action under pressure.

  3. Redesign Development: Stretch your execs with ambiguous, cross-functional challenges—not just workshops.

  4. Model It at the Top: If the CEO isn’t embracing discomfort, no one else will.

You don’t need to create chaos. You just need to stop insulating your leaders from discomfort—and start asking them to seek it.



The Discomfort Dividend


You can’t build a future-ready business with comfort-first leadership.

The next generation of strategic advantage will come not from better processes or faster tech—but from bolder human decisions. From leaders who are willing to feel awkward, wrong, or out of their depth—because they know that’s where the value is.

So next time you're hiring a leader, ask yourself:

Are they looking for clarity—or ready to lead without it?
Do they want the role—or are they ready for the risk that comes with it?
Are they seeking comfort—or prepared to create discomfort for progress?


Because in 2025,
comfort is a luxury your business can’t afford.

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?