Where we are
You have diagnosed properly and you know how to build a plan that is a real chance. This session is about the moments when you have to deliver something the other person does not want to hear. The core finding to hold, from Greenberg's work on organizational justice, is that people assess fairness on more than the outcome: a fair process and a respectful delivery can make a disappointing answer acceptable, and an unfair process can make a generous one feel arbitrary. That is unusually good news for a manager, because the outcome is often out of your hands and the process and the delivery are entirely yours. It also means the most common failure - softening the message until it carries no information - destroys the one thing you actually controlled.
Three conversations, one structure 7 min live
They feel different and they are not. Each one has a decision that is already made, a reason that must be given, and a person who needs to know what happens next. The structure is the same; only the content changes.
LiveWhy the decision goes first3 min▶
Managers open with context because it feels gentler. From the other side of the table it is not. The person knows within seconds that something is coming, and every additional sentence of preamble is time spent in dread while being unable to listen.
- "I want to tell you the outcome first and then explain it: you are not in the promotion round this cycle." That sentence is kind. It ends the uncertainty immediately and signals that you will not make them dig for it.
- Then give the reason and stop. Managers fill silence with more reasons, which sounds like building a case and invites argument about the weakest one.
- Expect not to be heard after beat one. People need a moment to absorb news. Plan to repeat the substance at the end, or follow up in writing the same day - which is also what procedural fairness requires.
The eight-minute warm-up. A Cartwheel manager opened a promotion-denial conversation with eight minutes of appreciation for the analyst's year. The analyst later said she spent all eight minutes certain she was being made redundant, and remembered nothing after "so, on the promotion round". The praise was genuine and it landed as a preamble to bad news, which also devalued it. Say the decision, then the reason, then the appreciation - in that order it is heard as true rather than as cushioning.
Procedural and interactional justice, practically 5 min live
Greenberg's distinction is the most useful piece of theory in this session because it converts directly into a checklist. Two dimensions, both entirely within your control even when the outcome is not.
LiveWhy "my hands are tied" is the worst of them3 min▶
It is tempting because it is often partly true, and it does three damaging things at once:
- It removes the reason. The person now knows only that a system did something to them, which is unarguable and therefore unresolvable.
- It removes you as a route. If you are powerless, there is no point raising anything with you again - so you have quietly ended your own usefulness as their manager.
- It is rarely accurate. You usually influenced the input even if you did not make the call, and the person often knows that.
The honest version keeps your agency and the truth: "The decision was made in the levelling group, and I was part of it. The reason was X. I think that reason is fair, and here is what would change it." Or, when you disagree: "I argued for a different outcome and did not win. Here is the reason given, and here is what I will do differently next cycle." Both are harder to say and both leave you standing as someone worth talking to.
Self-studyThe pay conversation specifically2 min read▶
Pay is the conversation managers are least prepared for, because they are often given a number and no rationale.
- Know how the number was set before the meeting. Band, position in band, budget, performance input. If you do not know, ask before you deliver it - "I do not know" in the meeting is corrosive.
- Separate the components out loud. Market movement, band position, and individual performance are three different things, and merging them makes a below-expectation number sound like a verdict on the person when often it is not.
- Never imply an OKR score set the number. The sibling OKR course's central rule applies here: scores steer and teach, they do not set pay. If your organisation does wire them together, say so plainly rather than pretending it does not.
- Do not speculate about others' pay, and do not say "everyone got the same" unless it is literally true and you are permitted to say it.
- If the number is genuinely poor and you agree, say that. "This is lower than I think your work justifies, here is what I am doing about it for next cycle" retains trust. Defending a number you find indefensible costs you more than the number does.
Script "this is not working" ★ 12 min · everyone tries
The hardest of the three, and the one where vagueness does most damage - because the person walks out unsure whether they have just been warned or reassured. Build it in four beats on the Cartwheel case.
Beat 1: state the concern plainly and immediately. "I need to talk about the forecasting work, because it is not where it needs to be."
Beat 2: the evidence. Two or three dated specifics, not a characterisation. This is where the b5 running file pays off.
Beat 3: what happens next, including your part - the teaching, the timeline, the checkpoint. Name whether this is a coaching conversation or a formal step, so there is no ambiguity about where they stand.
Beat 4: ask what you are missing, and mean it. This is the diagnosis check from b6 - and it is where you find out about the data feed.
| Version | What was said | What they heard |
|---|---|---|
| Too vague | "Just keep an eye on the forecasting side, if you can." | Nothing. No change follows, and in month nine this counts as never having been told |
| Too blunt | "The forecasting is not good enough and it needs to change." | A threat with no route and no evidence. Defensiveness, and nothing learned |
| Right | "I need to talk about forecasting - it is not where it needs to be. The last three arrived after the buying meeting and two needed rework. This is a coaching conversation, not a formal one. I want to set you up with Tomas for four weeks and check in at week two. What am I missing?" | The concern, the evidence, their standing, the support, and an invitation. All in thirty seconds |
Run the justice checklist on a real one ★ 8 min · do your own
Take a hard conversation you have coming up and check it against both dimensions before you have it. Most failures are found in the preparation, not the delivery.
Procedural: were the criteria known in advance? Has a comparable person been treated the same way? Is my information accurate and dated?
Interactional: private, unhurried, delivered by me? Is my explanation honest rather than formulaic? Have I planned actual space for their response?
Strike out every phrase from the list. Read your opening aloud and count how many appear.
Plan the follow-up: what will you put in writing the same day, so they can reread it once the adrenaline has gone?
The conversation that was fair and felt unfair. A Cartwheel analyst was declined promotion on entirely defensible grounds against criteria she had seen. It still landed badly, and the reason was interactional: her manager delivered it in a rushed fifteen minutes between meetings, in a glass room, and checked his phone twice. Same decision, same reason, same criteria - and she described it afterwards as being processed. Procedural fairness got the decision right; the delivery lost the trust anyway. Both dimensions have to hold, and the second one costs nothing but attention.
Try it yourself - this week ◐ 30-45 min total
- Write beat one for a conversation you are avoiding. One sentence, decision first, no preamble.
- Read your draft aloud and strike every phrase from the list - especially "my hands are tied".
- Before your next pay conversation, find out exactly how the number was set. Do not walk in without it.
- Add the line "this is a coaching conversation, not a formal one" wherever it is true. It removes a huge amount of unnecessary fear.
- Run the justice checklist on one upcoming conversation, and fix the delivery conditions - private, unhurried, phone away.
- Put the substance in writing the same day, every time.
Sources covered (cited)
Taught from the organizational-justice and feedback literature. This session covers:
Three questions before you go 🎯 ◐ 90 seconds
1 · Why should the decision come in the first thirty seconds?
Decision, then reason, then appreciation. In that order the appreciation is heard as true; as a warm-up it is heard as cushioning, and the substance is not absorbed at all.
2 · What is wrong with "unfortunately my hands are tied"?
If you are powerless there is no point raising anything with you again, so you have ended your own usefulness as their manager. Keep your agency: "the decision was made in the levelling group, I was part of it, the reason was X" - or, if you disagree, say you argued and lost.
3 · A promotion denial was decided on criteria the person had seen, and still landed as unfair. What most likely failed?
Both dimensions have to hold. Procedural fairness got the decision right; the delivery lost the trust anyway. The second dimension costs nothing but attention - private, unhurried, undivided, and real space for their response.