Blog

Startup Leadership - #6

We follow a good structure, but the conversation creates a wrong outcome. Why?

We try to apply a good structure, we focus on facts, on impact, on expectations. We make an effort to be direct and specific, because we know that clarity matters, and yet, something still feels off...

The conversation becomes tense, the other person shuts down, becomes defensive, or agrees in the moment but nothing really changes. Sometimes, we leave the conversation feeling uncomfortable, even when we said exactly what we intended to say. This is where many of us get confused, because we assume that if a conversation is clear, it is automatically healthy. In practice, we can say the right things, in the right way, and still create the wrong outcome.

So what makes a conversation healthy?

The goal of a conversation is not only to be clear; it is to create understanding.

Clarity is what makes the message visible; but the intent behind it is what determines how it is received. A conversation becomes healthy when clarity is used to align, to solve, and to move forward, it becomes unhealthy when clarity is used to judge, to blame, or to assert control. This is why two conversations can follow the exact same structure, and lead to completely different reactions. For example:

• When we use facts to prove a point, people feel cornered, but when we use facts to explore a situation, people are more likely to engage.
• When we describe impact to emphasise fault, it creates pressure, but when we describe impact to explain consequences, it creates awareness.
• When we set expectations as ultimatums, it closes the conversation, but when we set expectations as a shared direction, it opens it.

The structure stays the same, but the experience is completely different.

How do you keep conversations clear without making them toxic?

Here’s the shift: instead of focusing only on what we say, we also need to be intentional about how we use it.

We can keep the same three-part structure, but change the posture behind it: Firstly, start with the situation, not to build a case, but to create a shared understanding of what is happening, then explain the impact, not to amplify the problem, but to make the consequences visible and relevant, finally, clarify the expectation, not as a fixed judgement, but as a direction we want to move towards together (read "How do I handle difficult conversations in a startup?" for more on the technique).

For example, the difference is subtle but important.

Instead of using the structure to reinforce a conclusion, we use it to open a conversation: “In the last few weeks, I’ve noticed that deadlines have been missed without updates. This creates uncertainty for the team and affects planning. I’d like us to find a way to communicate earlier when something is at risk. How do you see it?”

The intention creates space for response, not just compliance. Because a conversation is not complete when we have said our part, it is complete when the other person can engage with it too. This is not about being softer; it's about being constructive. Because in startups, where speed and alignment matter, the quality of conversations shapes how teams operate. And over time, people don’t just respond to what we say; they respond to how conversations make them feel.

Clarity creates direction, but it is the way we use that clarity that determines whether people move with us, or simply react to us.