When confronting a high-performing but abrasive employee, don't just criticize. Frame the conversation around their career. Offer a choice: remain a great individual contributor, or learn the interpersonal skills needed for a broader leadership role, with your help.
Directly confronting someone about a behavioral 'blocker' often causes defensiveness. A better method is to first demonstrate your own self-awareness and vulnerability. Then, ask for permission to share observations, which creates trust and makes them more receptive to exploring their behavior.
Feedback often fails because its motivation is selfish (e.g., 'I want to be right,' 'I want to vent'). It only lands effectively when the giver's genuine intention is to help the other person become who *they* want to be. This caring mindset dictates the delivery and reception.
To give corrective feedback effectively to sensitive Gen Z employees, leaders must first connect before they correct. The ALEG method provides a four-step process: Ask questions to understand their perspective, Listen intently so they feel heard, Empathize with their situation so they feel understood, and only then Guide them. This approach earns the right to lead through relationship, not authority.
A manager's highest duty is to an employee's fulfillment, not just their performance. When a top performer is not personally aligned with their role, a leader should actively help them find a better fit—even if it means using their own social capital to place them at another organization.
Instead of trying to find the perfect words, preface difficult feedback by stating your own nervousness. Saying, "I'm nervous to share this because I value our relationship," humanizes the interaction, disarms defensiveness, and makes the other person more receptive to the message.
In difficult conversations, leaders fail when focused on their own feelings or ego. The real work is to get to the absolute truth of the situation. This involves moving past your own reaction to understand why the person acted as they did, if the behavior is correctable, and what would truly motivate them to change.
The key to a successful confrontation is to stop thinking about yourself—whether you need to be seen as tough or be liked. The singular goal is to communicate the unvarnished truth in a way the other person can hear and act upon, without their defensiveness being triggered by your own emotional agenda.
Firing someone feels adversarial until you reframe it as a win-win. The employee wants to be successful and valued; if your team isn't the right place for that, helping them move on is a service to their career, not a disservice. This mindset changes the entire dynamic.
People are more willing to accept and incorporate feedback about traits they see as secondary, like being "well-spoken" or "witty." Tying feedback to core identity traits, such as kindness or integrity, is more likely to be perceived as a threat and trigger a defensive response.
When confronting a talented but abrasive CTO, don't just critique bad behavior. Frame the conversation around their effectiveness. Horowitz suggests saying, "You're a fantastic Director of Engineering, but not an effective CTO," because a true CTO must marshal resources across the entire company, not just manage their own team well.