Rachel manages a finance team of seven. One of them, David, a capable accountant with twelve years at the company, has become abrupt with junior colleagues. Two have complained. Rachel has known for six weeks. She has drafted the conversation in her head many times, usually at about three in the morning.
When she finally raises it, at the end of a one-to-one, she says, “A few people have mentioned you can be a bit sharp.” David asks who. Rachel says she cannot say. David says he has been covering for two vacancies since March and that if people cannot take direct feedback they are in the wrong profession. Rachel says she is only passing on what she has heard. David says he would like it noted that he has received no support. The meeting ends. Rachel feels she has made things worse, and she is right. She put it off for six weeks and then spent four minutes on it, and neither of them had been able to hear the other.
Every manager has a conversation they are not having. About performance, behaviour, a refused request, a complaint. They know it is needed. They rehearse it and postpone it.
The avoidance is not weakness and the conversations do not go badly for lack of scripts. They are hard because they activate threat responses in both people, and people under threat do not think or listen well. This guide explains what is happening psychologically and offers a structure that works with it.
Both people are under threat.
Status, certainty, autonomy, belonging and fairness are all in play, and threat makes people defend, not listen.
The facts are rarely the hard part.
Feelings and identity drive the conversation. Acknowledge them.
Describe, ask, acknowledge, agree.
Open plainly, give specifics, listen to their account, recognise what is valid and settle what changes.
Why do we avoid difficult conversations?
Because avoidance is immediately rewarding. Postponing the conversation produces instant relief, and the costs arrive later and less visibly. This is how most avoidance behaviours are maintained.
Several specific fears are involved.
- Fear of the reaction. Tears, anger, a counter-accusation, a grievance.
- Fear of damaging the relationship. Particularly with someone you like or depend on.
- Fear of being wrong. Perhaps you have misjudged it, or contributed to it yourself.
- Fear of being the bad person. Most people’s self-image includes being kind, and causing distress conflicts with it.
Managers also overestimate how badly it will go. People are poor forecasters of others’ reactions to candour and consistently expect more hostility than they meet. And the reluctance to deliver bad news, which psychologists call the mum effect, is strongest when the recipient is present and the news is about them.
The costs of delay accumulate. The behaviour continues. Others are affected and notice that nothing is done. The manager’s irritation builds, so that when the conversation happens it carries six weeks of resentment. And the employee, when they find out how long the manager has known, feels ambushed.
Each postponement makes the conversation seem larger and the eventual explanation (“why didn’t you tell me sooner?”) more awkward, which makes the next postponement more likely.
What happens in the brain during a hard conversation?
The brain treats social threats much as it treats physical ones. Criticism from someone with power over your livelihood triggers a fast defensive response: stress hormones, a raised heart rate and a narrowing of attention toward the threat. The capacities needed for a good conversation, considering another view, weighing evidence, controlling impulses, are reduced at the moment they are needed.
The consultant David Rock summarised the social triggers in a model he called SCARF, drawing on social neuroscience. It is a simplification, but a helpful one.
| Domain | The threat | How it shows up in a hard conversation |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Being diminished relative to others | “You’re telling me I’m not good at my job” |
| Certainty | Not knowing what will happen | “Am I going to be fired?” |
| Autonomy | Losing control over one’s situation | “This is being done to me” |
| Relatedness | Being cast as an outsider or opponent | “My manager is against me” |
| Fairness | Being treated unjustly | “Others do the same and nothing happens” |
Rachel’s opening managed to trigger all five. “A few people have mentioned” attacked David’s status and relatedness, since colleagues had gone behind his back. Refusing to say who removed certainty and offended his sense of fairness. Raising it in the closing minutes of a meeting removed his autonomy. His response, defending and counter-attacking, was close to automatic.
The manager is under threat as well. Rachel’s retreat into “I’m only passing on what I’ve heard” was her own defence.
What are the “three conversations”?
Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton and Sheila Heen of the Harvard Negotiation Project argued that every difficult conversation contains three layers.
The “what happened” conversation. Each person has a story about the facts, the other’s intentions and who is to blame. Each assumes their story is the truth. The authors recommend moving from certainty to curiosity, from “I know what you meant” to “here is the effect on me, what was your intention?”, and from blame to contribution: what did each of us do that led here?
The feelings conversation. Feelings are usually at the centre and usually unmentioned. Unexpressed, they leak out as tone.
The identity conversation. This is the deepest layer. David’s sense of himself as a competent professional who carries the team is under attack. Rachel’s sense of herself as a fair and supportive manager is too. People defend hardest when identity is at stake.
It follows that keeping to the facts is not sufficient. The facts are seldom what makes the conversation difficult.
How should you prepare?
Preparation is where most of the work is done.
Be clear about your purpose. What do you want to be different afterwards? “For David to speak to junior staff without sarcasm” is a purpose. “For David to know people are unhappy” is not.
Separate what you observed from what you concluded. Write down the specific events. Notice where you have added an interpretation such as “he doesn’t respect them”.
Consider their story. What might they say? What pressures are they under? What have you done, or failed to do, that contributed? David had been covering two vacancies for months.
Decide your opening sentences. The first thirty seconds set the tone. Write them out.
Choose the time and place. Private, unhurried, not at the end of something else and not on a Friday afternoon. Give notice of the subject without building it up: “I’d like to talk about how things are going in the team. Can we take half an hour tomorrow?”
- I can state in one sentence what I want to change
- I have two or three specific, recent examples
- I have separated facts from my interpretations
- I have thought about what pressures they are under and how I have contributed
- I know my first two sentences
- The meeting is private, with enough time
- I am calm enough to listen
How should the conversation run?
A structure that works with the psychology looks like this.
Open directly and without accusation. State the subject and your intention. “I want to talk about how you’ve been working with Aisha and Tom. I value what you bring to this team and I want to sort this out with you.”
Describe, do not label. “In Tuesday’s close meeting, when Tom asked about the accrual, you said ‘I’ve explained this twice already’ and he stopped asking questions.” A description can be discussed. “You’re sharp with people” is a judgment and will be disputed.
Explain the impact. “Since then he has taken his questions to me, and the reconciliation was late.”
Ask, and then listen. “How do you see it?” This is the turning point. If you now explain further, the conversation is over. Listen for the story, the feelings and what matters to them.
Acknowledge what is valid. “You’ve carried two vacancies since March, and I haven’t done enough about that.” Acknowledgement is not agreement. It reduces threat more than anything else you can do.
Name what you see. If the person is angry or upset, say so plainly. “I can see this is frustrating to hear.” Research by Matthew Lieberman and colleagues suggests that putting feelings into words reduces the intensity of the emotional response.
Return to the issue and agree what changes. Acknowledging the workload does not remove the need for different behaviour. “Both things are true. The workload has been unreasonable, and I need juniors to be able to ask you questions. What would help?”
End with clarity. Summarise what each of you will do, and when you will talk again.
What about anonymous complaints?
They put the manager in a hard position, as Rachel discovered. “People have said” invites the question “who?” and creates a sense of being talked about behind one’s back.
Where possible, rely on what you have observed yourself. If you have seen nothing, go and look before having the conversation. If the complaint has to be the basis, say so plainly, explain why you will not name anyone, and move at once to specifics and to the person’s own account: “Two colleagues have raised concerns with me about how questions are received. I’m not going to say who, because what matters is the pattern. Here are the situations they described. I’d like to hear your view.” Serious complaints require a proper investigation and not an informal chat.
What if it goes badly anyway?
Sometimes it will. People cry, become angry, go silent or deny everything. A few principles help.
- Do not match the emotion. Slow down and lower your voice.
- Allow silence. It feels far longer to you than to them.
- Offer a pause. “Shall we take ten minutes?” is legitimate. So is continuing the next day.
- Do not retreat from the message. Soften the manner, not the content. Withdrawing the point to end the discomfort teaches both of you that the issue cannot be raised.
- Avoid arguing about the past. If you disagree about what happened, say so and move to what is needed from now on.
Do not turn a difficult conversation into a disciplinary meeting halfway through, and do not use an informal chat to deliver a formal warning. If the matter may lead to formal action, follow the procedure, including notice and the right to be accompanied. See workplace discipline psychology.
What should you do afterwards?
Follow up, and do what you said you would. A brief written note of what was agreed prevents later disagreement about it. Check in after a week or two. Notice improvement and say so specifically; the principles are in our guide to feedback psychology.
Reflect on your own part as well. If the conversation revealed that you had left the person without support, act on that. The manager’s willingness to change something is often what makes the employee’s change possible.
Teams in which these conversations happen early and routinely do not experience them as dramatic. Getting there depends on the climate described in our guide to psychological safety, and on managers, especially new ones, being taught how.
Rachel asked David for another meeting, with a day’s notice. She began by saying that she had handled the first one badly and that she should have dealt with the vacancies in March. Then she described the two meetings. David was quiet for a while and then said he had not realised Tom had stopped asking. They agreed that she would take two reconciliations off him until the new hire started, and that he would run a weekly half-hour for the juniors’ questions. It took forty minutes, which was thirty-six more than the first attempt.
Frequently asked questions
Why are difficult conversations at work so hard?
They threaten things people care about deeply: their standing, their security, their sense of control, their relationships and their sense of fairness. The brain responds to these social threats defensively, which reduces the ability to listen and reason.
How do you start a difficult conversation with an employee?
State the subject and your constructive intention in the first sentences, describe a specific recent example in neutral terms, explain its effect, and then ask how they see it. Avoid vague hints and generalisations.
How do you handle defensiveness in a difficult conversation?
Slow down, listen and acknowledge what is valid in the other person’s account without withdrawing your point. Naming the emotion you see and allowing a pause both reduce defensiveness. Return to the issue once the person has been heard.
What should you avoid saying in a difficult conversation?
Avoid “always” and “never”, character labels such as “unprofessional”, hiding behind anonymous sources, “calm down” and “I understand, but”. Each increases the sense of threat and invites argument.
Discover more from Kurums | Business Intelligence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.