From Conflict to Clarity: Dr. James Ryan of MBSC Leads Candid Conversations on Underperformance at HRSE KSA 2025

Mid East Info

22-06-2025

From Conflict to Clarity — Insights from Dr. James Ryan at HRSE KSA 2025
At HRSE KSA 2025, Dr. James Ryan of MBSC shared practical insights on leading effective performance conversations. In this interview, he highlights how MBSC is shaping leadership thinking in the region and offers guidance on turning underperformance into opportunities for growth. How does your participation at HRSE KSA 2025 reflect MBSC's commitment to thought leadership in performance management and leadership development in the region?
Our participation here at the HR Summit & Expo is a direct reflection of MBSC's core mission. We believe that world-class business education shouldn't just live in textbooks or research papers; it needs to be practical, relevant, and directly applicable to the challenges and opportunities leaders are facing here in the Kingdom and the wider region.
The topic of my presentation, 'From Conflict to Clarity' , was chosen specifically as a result of conversations I've had recently with a group of senior executives in the Kingdom. We know that handling underperformance is one of the most significant challenges managers face. It's a universal pain point.
By bringing a session like this to a major forum like HRSE KSA, MBSC is here to highlight that we're not just observing these challenges; we are actively developing and teaching the frameworks to solve them. Our goal is to move beyond theory and equip leaders with confidence and the tools to foster growth, build trust, and ultimately, drive performance. This is what we mean by thought leadership—providing actionable solutions for real-world problems faced in the Kingdom. How can managers effectively transform performance conversations from moments of conflict into opportunities for growth and development?
For me, the secret lies in a fundamental mindset shift. We have to move away from thinking of these conversations as a confrontation we must win, and toward viewing them as a collaborative dialogue we must lead. This requires preparation and a commitment to clarity—focusing on facts, not feelings—as well as a real commitment to active listening, so we can truly understand the nature of a performance deficit. What are some common pitfalls leaders face when addressing underperformance, and how can they navigate these challenges with confidence?
The pitfalls are incredibly common, and they're almost always rooted in the anxieties we as managers feel. Managers are people too, and we worry about demotivating our employees, sparking an unpleasant emotional reaction, or damaging a relationship we have built over time.
These fears lead to very predictable mistakes. The most common is what I call 'sugarcoating'—being so vague and indirect that the employee leaves the meeting having no idea there was a serious performance issue to address. Another is simply delaying the conversation. We let the problem fester, our frustration builds, and then we come in too harsh too quickly .
Navigating these pitfalls comes down to two things: preparation and professionalism. Confidence doesn't come from being tough; it comes from being prepared. When you have your specific, behavior-based or results-based performance examples ready, you don't need to resort to broad generalizations. And professionalism—choosing a private setting, remaining calm, and keeping the focus on performance, not the person—is what keeps the conversation on track and minimizes that defensiveness we all dislike having to deal with in these sometimes-difficult conversations. Why is active listening critical during performance discussions, and can you share an example of how it changes the outcome of such conversations?
Active listening is critical because it's the tool that shifts the dynamic from a one-way hierarchical critique to a two-way exploration among professionals. Without it, you're just delivering a monologue. With it, you're uncovering the root causes of underperformance. It's the difference between assuming you have all the answers and actually finding what the answers to performance questions really are.
Let me give you a quick example: I noticed a star employee's reports are suddenly coming in late and with errors. It's easy for me to assume some carelessness is creeping into their work.
With a traditional top-down approach, I might state: 'Your work has been sloppy lately. You need to be more focused.' The employee feels unfairly criticized, gets defensive, and the relationship is damaged.
With an active listening approach, I first present the facts clearly: 'In the last two weeks, I've noticed reports have been a little late and contained some data errors. This is below your usual standard of work. Can you help me understand what's been going on?'
In this case, the employee is more likely to feel safe to share—perhaps explaining that they were given access to a new software system with no training and have been struggling to pull the correct data.
The outcome is completely different. The problem wasn't carelessness; it was a lack of resources. The conversation is no longer about failure, but about how I can get them the training they need to succeed. I've not only solved the performance issue, but I've also built trust and shown the employee I'm there to support them. That's the power of listening. How can these leadership strategies be adapted to the cultural and organizational context of the Saudi workplace?
This is a vital question and gets to the heart of a core value of MBSC being 'from here, for here.' While core principles I discuss—like clarity, respect, and collaboration—are universal, their application must be culturally intelligent.
In the context of the Saudi workplace, the emphasis on professionalism and maintaining dignity is paramount. The strategy of choosing a private, appropriate setting for the conversation isn't just a nice idea; it's an absolute necessity. The public confrontation scenario I mention in my presentation would be exceptionally damaging here (and unfortunately, I've seen it happen).
Additionally, the idea of focusing on specific behaviors rather than broad patterns of behavior is incredibly effective. It allows for a direct but respectful conversation that protects the individual's sense of self-worth. This is crucial in our culture of face-saving and dignity.
Finally, the collaborative and future-focused approach aligns very well with the relationship-oriented nature of business here in the Kingdom. Framing the conversation around 'How can we solve this together?' and 'What do you need from me to achieve our shared goals?' reinforces a manager's role as a supportive leader, not just a critical boss. It's about adapting the style of delivery to ensure the substance of the message is received in the most constructive way possible. What role does clear and constructive feedback play in fostering a healthy and high-performing workplace culture?
This is so important. We need to think of clear feedback as a form of kindness. It provides psychological safety. When you clearly articulate the gap between expectations and performance, you give your employees a roadmap for success. They know what they need to do to win. You are enabling and empowering them to achieve better performance.
It sends a powerful message: 'We don't just point out flaws; we invest in your growth.' This leads to greater employee engagement and a shared sense of ownership. Over time, we create a virtuous cycle. Individuals improve, teams get stronger, and the entire organization builds a resilient culture of continuous improvement and high performance.
It all starts with the courage and skill to have one clear, constructive conversation at a time. Be brave, invest in improving your managerial skills, and start having those performance conversations