CPR for the Workplace: Breathing New Life Into Difficult Employee Conversations.

Few leadership skills are as uncomfortable, or as necessary, as addressing conflict. It is also one of the areas where I have struggled the most and continue to work intentionally. Avoiding difficult conversations rarely makes things better, but that does not mean they get easier with time.

Several years ago, I attended a course based on the book Crucial Conversations. It helped me rethink how I approach situations involving bad behavior, broken commitments, and missed expectations. One of the most practical concepts I took away was CPR. It is a progressive approach to addressing issues while maintaining a respectful, productive dialogue. In this context, CPR stands for Content, Pattern, and Relationship.

Why Content, Pattern, and Relationship Matter

Clear distinctions between Content, Pattern, and Relationship help leaders respond proportionally and fairly. More importantly, they help protect trust. When leaders skip steps or escalate too quickly, employees often feel blindsided or treated inconsistently. CPR provides a way to address issues early, calmly, and with credibility.

• Content refers to a specific behavior or issue. It is either the first occurrence or the first time it has been addressed.

• Pattern recognizes that the same issue is repeating over time.

• Relationship acknowledges that continued behavior is now affecting trust and working relationships.

Where CPR Fits in Crucial Conversations

In practice, CPR is often underused. When leaders are busy or frustrated, it is tempting to jump straight to discipline. This is especially true with culture-related issues, which are harder to define than clear policy violations. CPR slows things down just enough to ensure fairness without ignoring accountability.

CPR fits within the broader Crucial Conversations framework, including:

• Choose What and If

• Master My Stories

• Describe the Gap

• Make It Motivating

• Make It Easy

• Stay Focused and Flexible

I primarily use CPR for lower-level issues where early conversations can correct behavior before formal discipline becomes necessary. This is not the right approach for theft, violence, or other serious misconduct that requires immediate action.

A guiding assumption for me is that most people are trying to do the right thing. When behavior falls short, it is often due to missing information, unclear expectations, or situational stress. Approaching conversations with curiosity instead of judgment keeps my mindset grounded and my tone constructive.

CPR Is Not Just for Leader-to-Employee Conversations

Although CPR is often discussed in the context of managing employees, the approach applies far more broadly. At its core, CPR is about addressing gaps between expectations and reality in a respectful way. That applies to peers and even to managing upward.

In peer-to-peer situations, there may be no formal corrective action, but accountability still matters. Addressing issues early at the Content level can prevent frustration, disengagement, or side conversations that erode trust. The goal is not authority. The goal is clarity.

The same approach can work when addressing concerns with a leader. There are times when I need to hold my boss accountable for something that did not go as expected. Simply stating the issue and asking, “What happened?” opens the door to dialogue without accusation. That question communicates respect, assumes positive intent, and invites context I may not have.

In these situations, CPR is informal but still effective. Content focuses on facts. Patterns may emerge over time. Relationship concerns show up when trust begins to slip. These conversations are rarely documented, but they can significantly improve alignment and mutual understanding.

Content

To illustrate, consider a situation where I am told an employee used foul or inappropriate language in the workplace.

At the Content level, professional language is a clear expectation. Before initiating the conversation, I ask myself a simple question: why would a reasonable person behave this way? That question helps me enter the discussion with curiosity.

I then focus on the facts:

“I heard you using language in the workplace that is not appropriate. What was going on?”

Common responses might include:

• I was frustrated

• I did not realize it came across that way

• That is just how I talk

• I did not think anyone would be offended

• It was said in the heat of the moment

At this stage, the explanation matters less than the tone of the conversation. The goal is to reinforce expectations while allowing the employee to speak openly. This approach supports fairness and psychological safety, as long as the response is not insubordinate or deceptive.

Most of the time, the behavior stops here. Many employees want to do the right thing once expectations are clear. Even denial can be an opportunity to reinforce standards without damaging the relationship. For example: “I’m relieved to hear that. Let’s talk about why this expectation matters.”

These conversations typically accomplish four things:

• Accountability is clear

• Expectations are reinforced

• The relationship is maintained or strengthened

• The behavior is corrected

I thank the employee and return to work. I also document the conversation informally by emailing myself a brief summary with the date and key points in case a Pattern conversation becomes necessary.

Pattern

If the same issue occurs again, the conversation shifts to Pattern. This is often where frustration creeps in and leaders are tempted to escalate emotionally rather than stay consistent.

Using the same example, another observer reports inappropriate language.

I start similarly, but now acknowledge the repetition:

“You were observed using inappropriate language again, this time by a different person. We talked about this a few weeks ago, and I’m concerned this is becoming a pattern. What happened?”

This conversation reinforces two things clearly. The behavior will continue to be addressed, and the expectation is not new. The tone remains respectful, but the emphasis increases. I again document the conversation informally and prepare, if needed, for the next step.

Relationship

If Content and Pattern conversations fail to correct the behavior, the issue now affects trust. At this point, formal documentation is appropriate.

After a third occurrence, I initiate a Relationship conversation and involve Human Resources. HR’s role here is supportive, ensuring fairness, consistency, and proper documentation.

“You were observed using inappropriate language again. We discussed this two months ago and again last month. You acknowledged the expectation and agreed to maintain professional language. This behavior is now affecting our working relationship and my ability to trust what you say. As a result, I am issuing a documented verbal warning.”

Even at this stage, the conversation remains respectful. I have peace of mind knowing I followed a fair, progressive process.

This approach is also helpful for Human Resources. It demonstrates that the leader addressed behavior early and consistently, giving the employee clear opportunities to improve.

Final Thought

The greatest risk with this approach is waiting too long to start. When leaders delay addressing small issues, frustration builds and fairness erodes. Early conversations protect both the employee and the leader.

A useful question to reflect on is this: what conversation am I postponing right now that would be easier, fairer, and more effective if I had it sooner?

If conflict is an area you struggle with, Crucial Conversations is a valuable resource, and CPR is a practical tool you can apply immediately.