Learn / Difficult conversations
Rehearse the feedback, disagreement and performance conversations a manager keeps putting off, before the real one.
The moment
A report who misses deadlines. A colleague who talks over others in meetings. A complaint that needs an answer. The manager knows what to say until the other person answers with something they had not heard. That is the part to rehearse.
The guidance
Australia, Great Britain and the US federal service describe the same shape: prepare, explain, listen, agree the next step.
The Fair Work Ombudsman’s guide to managing underperformance recommends specific examples, explaining the meeting, listening to the employee and agreeing support and follow-up. Check the award, agreement, contract and workplace policy for the process itself.
Acas guidance on challenging conversations helps managers prepare, conduct the conversation and plan the next step. Its remit is Great Britain; Northern Ireland has its own framework.
US Office of Personnel Management guidance covers federal supervisors: clear expectations, documented communication, and agency HR and mediation support. Private employers can consider it as a design comparison.
The evidence
Both evaluated VR diversity and inclusion training; the Google study evaluated training built with Equal Reality, a subsidiary of People Tech Revolution. Each tested a specific kind of conversation, named below.
Google’s scenarios included a manager’s performance feedback shaped by bias. In the published paper, the 7 trainees who returned the optional survey gave 82% average agreement that the VR training was better than Google’s standard DEI training, and 94% average satisfaction.
The Mayo Clinic trial tested a VR module on bias and upstander behaviour that People Tech Revolution built for nursing leaders. Of 1,149 eligible leaders, those who trained gained in empathic feeling against a control group in the week after the class (p = .002). At 6 to 8 months, with no control group left, the sample’s average was still above baseline. Read both Mayo Clinic papers.
Designing the scenario
Each part is something HR or a line manager can check before anyone rehearses it.
Write down the observed behaviour, its effect, the change wanted and the facts still unknown. Separate what the manager can decide from what needs HR. Have a reviewer flag assumptions about motive, culture, disability or circumstances.
Give the other person a credible explanation the manager has not heard. The rehearsal rewards asking, listening and updating the plan, rather than repeating prepared words whatever the answer.
Record what you saw: a clear opening, a specific concern, a chance to respond, an accurate summary, an agreed action and a follow-up date. Note separately what did not happen.
Ask what the manager intended, what the other person understood and where the conversation turned. Pick one response to practise again. The scenario and debrief guide goes further.
How it runs
Managers rehearse with an AI roleplay partner on a laptop or phone, or in a VR headset, then debrief.
Questions
Short answers.
No. Rehearsal builds the conversation; the employer still runs the right process. Discrimination, misconduct and protected disclosures follow their own pathways.
Choose the format for the task and the learner: facilitated roleplay, a browser or a headset, with an alternative for anyone who cannot use one.
A representative scenario, how branching or facilitation works, the feedback criteria and who reviews the content. See how provider types compare.
Define the workplace behaviour first and agree how a supervisor will observe it. Keep confidence, simulated behaviour and workplace performance as separate measures.
Planning a hard conversation?
Each rule and result in the document that published it.

Specific examples, a chance to respond, support and follow-up.

Preparing for and conducting a challenging conversation at work.

Clear expectations, documented communication and HR support for federal supervisors.

Agreement that the training was better than the standard DEI training, and satisfaction.

Empathy and upstander outcomes against a control group.
Learn / Difficult conversations
Rehearse the feedback, disagreement and performance conversations a manager keeps putting off, before the real one.
The moment
A report who misses deadlines. A colleague who talks over others in meetings. A complaint that needs an answer. The manager knows what to say until the other person answers with something they had not heard. That is the part to rehearse.
The guidance
Australia, Great Britain and the US federal service describe the same shape: prepare, explain, listen, agree the next step.
The Fair Work Ombudsman’s guide to managing underperformance recommends specific examples, explaining the meeting, listening to the employee and agreeing support and follow-up. Check the award, agreement, contract and workplace policy for the process itself.
Acas guidance on challenging conversations helps managers prepare, conduct the conversation and plan the next step. Its remit is Great Britain; Northern Ireland has its own framework.
US Office of Personnel Management guidance covers federal supervisors: clear expectations, documented communication, and agency HR and mediation support. Private employers can consider it as a design comparison.
The evidence
Both evaluated VR diversity and inclusion training; the Google study evaluated training built with Equal Reality, a subsidiary of People Tech Revolution. Each tested a specific kind of conversation, named below.
Google’s scenarios included a manager’s performance feedback shaped by bias. In the published paper, the 7 trainees who returned the optional survey gave 82% average agreement that the VR training was better than Google’s standard DEI training, and 94% average satisfaction.
The Mayo Clinic trial tested a VR module on bias and upstander behaviour that People Tech Revolution built for nursing leaders. Of 1,149 eligible leaders, those who trained gained in empathic feeling against a control group in the week after the class (p = .002). At 6 to 8 months, with no control group left, the sample’s average was still above baseline. Read both Mayo Clinic papers.
Designing the scenario
Each part is something HR or a line manager can check before anyone rehearses it.
Write down the observed behaviour, its effect, the change wanted and the facts still unknown. Separate what the manager can decide from what needs HR. Have a reviewer flag assumptions about motive, culture, disability or circumstances.
Give the other person a credible explanation the manager has not heard. The rehearsal rewards asking, listening and updating the plan, rather than repeating prepared words whatever the answer.
Record what you saw: a clear opening, a specific concern, a chance to respond, an accurate summary, an agreed action and a follow-up date. Note separately what did not happen.
Ask what the manager intended, what the other person understood and where the conversation turned. Pick one response to practise again. The scenario and debrief guide goes further.
How it runs
Managers rehearse with an AI roleplay partner on a laptop or phone, or in a VR headset, then debrief.
Questions
Short answers.
No. Rehearsal builds the conversation; the employer still runs the right process. Discrimination, misconduct and protected disclosures follow their own pathways.
Choose the format for the task and the learner: facilitated roleplay, a browser or a headset, with an alternative for anyone who cannot use one.
A representative scenario, how branching or facilitation works, the feedback criteria and who reviews the content. See how provider types compare.
Define the workplace behaviour first and agree how a supervisor will observe it. Keep confidence, simulated behaviour and workplace performance as separate measures.
Planning a hard conversation?
Each rule and result in the document that published it.

Specific examples, a chance to respond, support and follow-up.

Preparing for and conducting a challenging conversation at work.

Clear expectations, documented communication and HR support for federal supervisors.

Agreement that the training was better than the standard DEI training, and satisfaction.

Empathy and upstander outcomes against a control group.