In our 2026 Real-Time Business Conversation Index, one respondent shared this insight:
“Colleagues have difficulty with tough conversations. I often see my colleagues take things too personally rather than focus on the facts and possible outcomes. As professionals and senior leaders, we need to lead by example and ensure we take an objective approach to problem solving and addressing issues.”
Difficult conversations arise for everyone. Co-workers, managers, salespeople, business owners and those responsible for customer service all have moments when they’re challenged by a specific type of conversation. Over the next few weeks, I’ll share insights about these conversations and offer ideas for improving them. Your input and experience are always appreciated. We welcome your comments and feedback.
Most performance conversations fail because they’re either too soft to be useful or too blunt to be heard.
In my first business, I managed a team of salespeople. When they reached or exceeded their goals, it was a job I cherished. However, when, for a variety of reasons, their performance didn’t meet expectations, I became a dreadful manager.
This didn’t have anything to do with my intelligence or communication skills. It was connected to my immaturity. I cared for everyone we hired and I allowed compassion and empathy to dominate performance reviews instead of facts.
Performance conversations don’t fail because managers don’t care. And they don’t fail because team members don’t want to improve. They fail because of how these conversations are often structured.
The two most common approaches to performance conversations are: 1) softening the message to avoid discomfort, or 2) being very direct but not supporting the conversation with a specific structure.
- In the first case, the message is unclear and creates confusion. The team member remains unclear about what is expected and what they actually need to change.
- In the second scenario, the message is received as a personal critique. The ability to listen and learn is lost, as the team member reacts by defending themselves.
In both cases, nothing improves. Eliminating this scenario is connected to a phrase attributed to a 1950s police officer in the radio and television show Dragnet: “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Here’s the structure I’d use today for a performance conversation.
- Start with context. Open the conversation by providing a simple explanation about why it is taking place. For example, “I want to walk through a few things with you that I’ve been noticing and make sure that you and I are aligned on expectations.”
- Share specific facts. Instead of saying something like “You’ve been unreliable lately”, say “Over the past three weeks, the Johnson report and the Q2 summary were both submitted after our agreed-upon deadlines.”
- Explain the impact in terms of the result. “This delayed the client review process and created extra follow-up for the rest of the team.” This eliminates the personal.
- Pause and let them respond. This is how you create the conversation, not deliver a lecture. It allows you and the team member to diagnose the problem together.
- Reset expectations and define next steps. For example: “Going forward its important to the entire team that deadlines are met as agreed. Let me know in advance if you suspect a delay could happen.”
When these conversations are too soft in an effort to avoid friction, or so blunt they ignite defensiveness, both the message and the hoped-for result are lost. Performance remains inconsistent and is often harder to correct the next time.
Here’s the mindset shift for performance conversations: Stop trying to protect the person; start protecting the standard.
When the standard is clear and consistently reinforced, these conversations stop feeling personal. They become opportunities for team members to grow and contribute to the organization’s professionalism.
