Lawyers are trained to make arguments. We gather evidence, anticipate objections, test weaknesses, and prepare to defend our conclusions. When a client, colleague, or opposing party resists, the natural response is often to _explain more clearl_y, offer more evidence, or press the point more forcefully. The same instinct can shape how lawyers develop others.
A partner identifies a concern with an associate’s performance. The partner explains what went wrong, offers advice, and describes what should happen next. The feedback can be entirely accurate, but the associate leaves unconvinced, confused, defensive, or unsure how to translate it into different behavior.
I see this frequently, often with leaders who care deeply about developing others. They take pride in their willingness to teach and to give feedback, and they should. But sometimes, because they are understandably focused on delivering the message, they do not always spend enough time understanding how the other person sees the situation.
In both negotiation and professional development settings, the problem usually isn’t the quality of the argument. It may be that we are trying to influence someone before we understand them. Negotiation does not begin with persuasion. It begins with understanding, and so does professional development.
Development Conversations Are Also Negotiations
We do not usually think of feedback, coaching, or delegation as negotiation. But every meaningful development conversation contains a negotiation of some kind.
The two people may be negotiating their understanding of what happened, the standard that should apply, who is responsible, what needs to change, or what support will make improvement possible. That does not mean the leader negotiates away the performance standard. It means the path to meeting that standard cannot always be imposed through better instructions.
A leader may know what needs to change without knowing why it has not changed already. Is the person missing knowledge, confidence, context, capacity, or motivation? Do they understand the expectation or desired outcome differently? Are they protecting themselves from a perceived risk? Is something happening that they have been reluctant to disclose? Advice delivered before those questions are answered may be well-intentioned and fail to correct the problem.
Leveraging Tactical Empathy
In Never Split the Difference, former FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss and co-author Tahl Raz describe “tactical empathy” as understanding another person’s feelings and perspective, and demonstrating that understanding. This is sometimes mistaken for accommodation. It is not.
Acknowledging a concern does not mean agreeing with it, and understanding a person’s perspective does not require lowering one’s standards or expectations. Empathy, used well, is a way to obtain better information while reducing the defensiveness that keeps important information hidden. That distinction is particularly useful in professional development and performance conversations.
Leaders sometimes worry that listening too much will dilute the message. They may believe they need to be unequivocal, especially when performance is at issue. Clarity matters. But clarity and curiosity are not opposites. You can be clear that something must change while remaining genuinely interested in why it happened, how the other person understands it, and what will enable a better result.
Voss offers several negotiation techniques that translate particularly well into developing others.
Label What May Be Happening
A label names an emotion, concern, or dynamic without insisting that your interpretation is correct:
“It sounds like this feedback surprised you.”
“It seems like you are concerned that taking more ownership could create additional risk.”
“It looks like we may have had different understandings of the assignment.”
A good label creates an opening. The other person can confirm it, reject it, or give you a more accurate explanation. Then stop talking and listen. Do not immediately justify the feedback or rush to make the person feel better. Give them room to respond.
Mirror the Important Words
A mirror repeats a few meaningful words the other person has just used, usually with a curious tone.
“I did not have enough context.”
“Not enough context?”
The simplicity can feel uncomfortable, particularly to leaders accustomed to providing answers. But a mirror encourages elaboration without steering the person too quickly toward the leader’s preferred explanation. The objective is to better understand what was missing from the other person’s perspective.
Ask Questions That Require Thought
Questions beginning with “what” and “how” can move a development conversation from explanation to reflection:
“What was most difficult about this assignment?”
“How did you decide when the work was ready?”
“What would you do differently next time?”
“What support would help without taking ownership away from you?”
These are not questions to which the leader already knows the “correct” answer. If they are used to corner the other person into agreeing, they will feel performative. The quality of the question depends on the quality of the curiosity behind it.
Let Silence Do Some of the Work
When people are uncomfortable, they often reach first for the safest or most familiar answer. Silence gives them time to move beyond it. After asking a meaningful question, we would do well to pause. When the other person appears to be considering whether to say more, do not rescue them from the moment. Strategic silence creates room for reflection, candor, and ownership.
Listening Does Not Mean Lowering Performance Expectations
The strongest development conversations combine curiosity with clarity.
A leader can say:
“I want to understand what made this difficult.”
And also:
“The expectation remains that you take greater ownership.”
A leader can acknowledge:
“It sounds like the timeline felt unrealistic.”
And still ask:
“How could you have raised that concern earlier?”
Tactical empathy helps the leader understand the other person’s worldview. It does not require the leader to accept every explanation as sufficient. In fact, understanding the explanation allows the leader to respond more effectively. A capability problem requires a different response from a confidence problem. A lack of clarity requires something different from a lack of accountability. Without diagnosis, leaders may overteach someone who needs experience, reassure someone who needs challenge, or challenge someone who lacks the information required to succeed.
From Compliance to Ownership
Telling someone what to do can produce short-term compliance. Development requires something more; the person being coached or mentored must be able to examine their own behavior, understand its impact, and make a different choice when the leader is no longer in the room. That’s why the best development conversations are disciplined conversations in which the leader remains clear about expectations while helping the other person think.
Before the next feedback or coaching conversation, consider:
- What outcome am I trying to create?
- What might this person be worried about?
- What may I be assuming about their behavior or motivation?
- What might they not be telling me?
- What do I need to understand before I offer a solution?
- What question will help them take greater ownership?
Then identify the message that must be communicated clearly. Curiosity without clarity can create ambiguity. Clarity without curiosity can create resistance. The best negotiators are not simply the most persuasive people in the room. They are often the people capable of remaining curious long enough to discover what is actually driving the conversation. The same is true of the best developers of talent. They do not avoid direct feedback. They do not lower expectations. And they do not confuse empathy with agreement.
They understand that before they can help someone move forward, they may need to stop persuading and learn what is keeping that person where they are.
Sources
Chris Voss and Tahl Raz, Never Split the Difference: Negotiating as If Your Life Depended on It.