Using Values in Hard Conversations
Most corrections fail because they target the person, not the work. Learn how to name a value and a behavior instead, so the correction is clear, fair, and easier to act on.
The idea
When a team member does something that falls short, most owners reach for a label. “You’re careless.” “You don’t take this seriously.” “You’ve got an attitude problem.” The label feels honest, and it feels like it gets the point across. But a label gives the person nothing to do. It describes who they are, and a person cannot change who they are by Tuesday.
A useful correction does two things. First, it names the value the team has agreed to live by, such as excellence, ownership, or care for the customer. Second, it names the specific behavior that fell short of that value. Something a camera could record: a missed handoff, a client email sent without review, a deadline moved without telling anyone.
Done this way, the correction stays on the work. The person can see the gap between the standard and what happened, and they can see what would close it. This is also how Scripture frames hard truth. Paul asks believers to be “speaking the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15, ESV). The truth is about what was done, and the love is in how it is said.
This works in both settings I see most often: a correction in front of a leadership team, and a private correction in a one-on-one with a manager. The setting changes how much context you need. The structure stays the same.
The self-test
Think about the last correction you gave someone on your team. Answer these honestly:
- Can you name the value it was tied to in one or two words?
- Could a stranger watching the moment identify the specific behavior you were correcting?
- Did the words you used describe what the person did, or who they are?
- If the same behavior happened again tomorrow, would you know exactly what to say?
How to read your result: If all four are yes, you are already doing this well. If you answered no to question 1 or 2, your team probably has no shared standard to point to, and the problem is bigger than the conversation. If you answered no to question 3, you are correcting character, and the person has nothing to act on. If you answered no to question 4, the correction was a one-time reaction, not a process.
The common trap
Most owners do not set out to attack anyone. They label the person because the label feels like the clearest way to say, “This matters and I’m not happy.” The owner is often frustrated, sure of their read, and convinced that softening the words would hide the seriousness.
That is why the trap is hard to see from the inside. The label feels direct. But the person hears a verdict on their character, and the natural response is to defend it. The conversation then turns into an argument about whether they are lazy or careless, and the missed handoff never gets fixed.
The fix is not to soften the message. Keep the seriousness, and point it at the value and the behavior.
What the event adds
The people management workshop teaches this in greater detail and how to build the tools to execute this well.
