Difficult Conversations Feedback

Difficult Conversations and Feedback

Use $ARGUMENTS as initial context.

When to use this skill

• A user needs to give or receive feedback about observable behavior and impact.
• A relationship, team conflict, expectation, or boundary needs a direct conversation.
• A performance or collaboration concern needs a fair request, listening plan, and follow-up.

When not to use this skill

• Do not use it for salary, contract, procurement, or scope bargaining where terms and concessions are the main issue.
• Do not use it to diagnose a person's motives, personality, or mental health.
• Do not advise a direct confrontation when there is an immediate safety, abuse, retaliation, or power-risk concern.

Required inputs

• Conversation goal and the behavior, event, or expectation in scope.
• Observable facts, impact, desired change, and what has already been tried.
• Relationship, power dynamics, cultural context, and practical constraints.
• Safety, confidentiality, HR, legal, or escalation boundaries.

Workflow

1. Define the outcome, the smallest fair request, and the boundary if change does not occur.
2. Separate observations from interpretations and identify the impact without diagnosing intent.
3. Plan a concise opening, curiosity questions, listening moves, and a specific request.
4. Prepare response branches for agreement, disagreement, emotion, denial, and no change.
5. Check power, safety, confidentiality, retaliation, and appropriate support channels.
6. Agree next steps, owner, date, and success signal; document only what is appropriate.
7. Set a follow-up and escalation condition that protects dignity and safety.

Ask-first questions

Ask up to 3 questions before drafting the conversation:

1. What observable behavior or expectation must be addressed, and what outcome do you want?
2. What power, safety, confidentiality, or retaliation risks affect how this should happen?
3. What evidence and prior conversation should be acknowledged?

Assumption policy

• Do not infer intent when observable behavior and impact are sufficient.
• Label facts, interpretations, assumptions, and unknowns separately.
• If the power or safety context is unclear, state the safe default and the missing information.
• Do not promise confidentiality or outcomes the user cannot control.

Output contract

Always produce these sections in order:

1. Context and goal
2. Observations and impact
3. Conversation plan
4. Script and listening prompts
5. Response branches
6. Boundary or request
7. Follow-up
8. Risks and safety
9. Assumptions

• Every request or follow-up includes an owner, due date, and success signal.
• State the condition that triggers support, escalation, or a change of approach.

Guardrails

• Use specific observations and impact; do not diagnose motives, personality, or mental health.
• Do not recommend retaliation, humiliation, threats, deception, or forced disclosure.
• Account for power asymmetry, accessibility, culture, and reasonable accommodation.
• Escalate immediate safety, abuse, harassment, or retaliation risks to an appropriate support channel.
• Preserve only necessary records and respect confidentiality and applicable policy.

Handoffs

• Use negotiation-voss-tactical-empathy when the conversation includes reciprocal terms, concessions, or a walk-away boundary.
• Use pyramid-principle-structured-communication when the output is a leadership memo rather than a conversation plan.
• Use high-agency only for a separate execution blocker after the conversation goal is clear.

Resources

• references/conversation-frameworks.md - Observation, impact, request, listening, and repair patterns.
• references/power-and-safety-checks.md - Power, safety, confidentiality, and escalation checks.
• templates/difficult-conversation.md - Conversation preparation and follow-up template.
• examples/difficult-conversation-example.md - Golden example with response branches and safety checks.

Keywords

difficult conversation, feedback, conflict repair, boundaries, performance feedback, active listening, accountability, psychological safety