I have been working in campus law enforcement for over 40 years; 35 of them as a supervisor or director. When it comes to addressing personnel issues, I have a lot of experience. Managing people is, without exception, the most consistently challenging task because every individual brings unique needs and dynamics to the workplace.
I have had quite a few incredibly difficult employee counseling conversations — what were once referred to as disciplinary meetings — where challenging topics and corrective feedback needed to be addressed. The worst of these included raised voices (fortunately not mine) and staff storming out of the office, complete with the exasperated punctuation of a slamming door. I refer to these experiences as “growth opportunities.”
I have also had many productive conversations where both people come out feeling heard and seen with a solid plan for moving forward. I am happy to report that as I have developed as a manager, the balance of good experiences now far outweighs the awkward growth opportunities.
Related Article: Constantly Misunderstood and Under Verbal Attack? You Might Be the Problem.
Did the timing, setting, my tone, choice of words, or body language contribute to the outcome? How did my expectations shape the direction of the conversation? And how did I recover from and leverage those growth opportunities for better outcomes?
Great mentors and supervisors offered me (mostly) gentle feedback on my development challenges, especially my tendency to control outcomes out of fear of failure. Developmental feedback is hard to hear, so I adjust my mindset, acknowledge my part and commit to improvement. This involves introspection and reflection. Through this process, I identify and modify the choices I make and set clear goals for future interactions.
While I cannot control the other person who shows up to a conversation, I have identified three key elements — time, place, and tone — that I can control that can set me, and the other person, up for the most positive outcome.
Time: When Personnel Issues Happen, Don’t Rush or React
Unless an officer poses an immediate danger, I remind myself that time is on my side. When personnel issues arise, I have a visceral (now internal) reaction that will run along two possible tracks. One is jumping into defensive mode, questioning the complainer’s understanding of our demanding work. The other involves conducting a mental inventory of the officer and listing every previous transgression, real or imagined. And then I breathe. The breathing is important here. I cannot stress this enough.
After identifying my initial reaction, I remind myself that my interpretation of events is shaped by my own experiences and biases. By acknowledging this, I am better able to listen objectively to others’ perspectives and adjust my response accordingly. I might do a reality check and discuss the interaction with a member of my leadership team or human resources. This ensures that my perception is grounded, and my plan of action is appropriate, given the facts as I experienced them.
Related Article: De-Escalating Angry People: A Critical Safety Skill in Education and Healthcare
Time also creates a buffer that allows for introspection and planning. I am not bringing my most even and measured self to an employee counseling meeting at the end of a long, stressful day. And the officer may not be bringing the best version of themselves at the end of a 10- or 12-hour shift. When a behavior does not require immediate intervention, find a time that optimizes the chances of success.
A final thought about timing. When I was a newer officer, I had a supervisor who would say something like, “we need to address this when you get back from your vacation” as I was happily sprinting out of work for some much-needed time off. I hope you can sense my joy deflating as you read this. This is what researcher and author Brene Brown refers to as foreboding joy: that feeling when joy is disrupted by the worry of impending doom. Do not do this. It is manipulative at best and just plain mean-spirited.
Place: Address Mistakes Privately, Not in Public
Just as timing can influence the outcome of a conversation, choosing an appropriate setting is crucial for ensuring privacy, comfort, and open communication. While public recognition can inspire not only the individual but also their peers, addressing mistakes privately helps maintain dignity and trust, preventing embarrassment or resentment. Choosing a private office for difficult conversations allows employees to feel safe and respected, making them more likely to engage honestly and constructively.
If your department is anything like mine, it is difficult to find a place immune to the curiosity of other employees. To get to my office, you must run the figurative hallway gauntlet of reception, dispatch, locker rooms, and offices. There is no other way to get there. When I need to have counseling or corrective conversations, I plan them at a time when the bulk of the staff are out on patrol. This approach helps ensure that employees feel less exposed and more at ease, which encourages honest and constructive dialogue during our meetings.
I request meetings via text, email, or through the dispatcher. A polite “Can I speak with you in my office?” is more effective than a stern command. If safety is not an issue, seats near the door remain open. This helps employees feel less confined and more comfortable during potentially stressful conversations. Serious matters are managed in the human resources office, and potentially contentious meetings are managed separately.
Remove as many physical distractions and barriers between the participants as possible. Phones on silent. Everyone seated.
As a matter of practice, I have another member of my leadership team or an HR staff member present for conversations, both as a witness to ensure transparency and as a buffer to help facilitate a fair and balanced discussion for all parties involved. This also provides support for both parties and creates an environment where everyone feels their perspective is respected.
Tone: Be Respectful and Clear in Your Tough Conversations with Employees
The “how” of these conversations is an ever-evolving art. It requires a blend of empathy, adaptability, and clear communication, as each conversation brings new challenges and learning opportunities. Before the meeting, we outline and review the agenda, so everyone knows what to expect and understands their role in the discussion.
While the barriers I mentioned above are physical distractions, there are also emotional and psychological barriers, such as anxiety about being judged, fear of negative consequences, or past experiences that influence how openly someone communicates.
In a relational conversation, there is mutual support and positive energy, leading to shared understanding. Think about being in a conversation with a trusted colleague, the positive energy generated when work is humming along. You come into the conversation with optimism; you leave with agreement and resolution. In a transactional meeting, the focus is on completing the task at hand, the difficult conversation.
Find the balance between a relational and transactional meeting. Start the meeting with a handshake and thank the employee for meeting with you, then transition to the purpose of the meeting. State in clear, respectful language why you are meeting. “Officer Smith we are meeting today to discuss…” a pattern of repeated callouts, the incident involving X, etc. Provide a summary of the incident as you understand it.
“I would like to hear your perspective.” Then listen. Allow the person to add context. If they begin introducing unrelated information or shifting responsibility, gently steer the conversation back to the main issue. If they continue to digress, acknowledge the information and suggest it be part of a different discussion. For example, you might consider saying, “I understand that’s important to you; let’s focus on today’s topic and we can address that separately, if needed.” When they are finished, ask for clarification, if needed. Summarize what you heard back to them. “I want to make sure I heard you accurately.”
If there is a performance outcome, plan, or disciplinary action, share it with them in clear, concise terms. Before concluding the meeting, ask if there are questions, and tell them you will follow up in writing with a summary of the meeting, outlining any agreed-upon actions or expectations moving forward. Thank them again and shake hands.
Immediately after meetings, I send an email that summarizes the location, time, and content of the conversation with a clear plan of action. This ensures both parties have a shared understanding of what was discussed and agreed upon and provides a written record for future reference.
Reflect, Recalibrate and Try Again with More Empathy and Resilience
Through years of trial, error, and the occasional stumble, I have come to appreciate the unpredictable landscape of managing people. Each scenario — whether a quick resolution or a drawn-out dance of misunderstandings — has nudged me to refine my approach, sharpen my awareness, and develop a deeper well of patience.
I have found that genuine progress is born not from flawless execution, but from a willingness to reflect, recalibrate, and try again with greater empathy and resilience. If there is one lesson I would share, it is to embrace mistakes as the growth opportunities they are and approach each new challenge with an open mind.
It is important to acknowledge that people bring their full selves to these conversations, leaders included. For me, this means recognizing when I am feeling defensive and taking a moment to pause before responding or seeking feedback from a trusted colleague to gain perspective. If I do not know where my vulnerabilities are, the growth opportunities will keep coming.
Amanda Guthorn, DA is the director of security for the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation. Before that she served as a campus safety executive at LaSalle and Keene State Universities.
Note: The views expressed by guest bloggers and contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Campus Safety.
