Your employee is competent. Their work is fine. But every time they send an email, people come to you frustrated. Their updates in meetings leave the room confused. They CC everyone on things that need one person. They write paragraphs when a sentence would do, or they're so terse people read hostility into it. Clients have noticed. Teammates have noticed. You've noticed.
And you haven't said anything, because how do you tell someone the way they communicate is the problem without it sounding like you're criticizing who they are?
Here's the thing: you're not. Communication style is a skill, not a personality. And you give feedback on skills all the time. The reason this one feels different is that it's invisible — there's no deliverable to point to, no deadline missed, no number that's off. The problem lives in the friction it creates for everyone around them, which makes it easy to rationalize avoiding. But research consistently shows that poor communication is one of the leading drivers of workplace failures — 86% of employees and executives cite it as a root cause. That friction you're watching is costing your team real time and real trust, and you're not doing your employee any favors by staying quiet about it.
The conversation itself is simpler than you think, as long as you stay specific.
Don't open with the style. Open with the impact. "I've noticed that when you send project updates by email, people are coming back with a lot of follow-up questions, and sometimes things don't move forward until there's a follow-up call." That's observable. That's concrete. You're describing what's happening, not diagnosing a personality flaw. From there, you can narrow in: "I think part of what's happening is the format of the updates — they're covering a lot of ground, but the key decision or action item isn't always clear at the top."
Be specific about what you want instead. Vague feedback on communication is nearly useless — "be clearer" or "be more concise" doesn't tell someone what to actually do differently. Instead: "For project updates, I'd like you to lead with the one thing you need from the reader before getting into context." Or: "In meetings, when you present a recommendation, try stating the recommendation first and the reasoning second — right now it's usually the other way around." The more concrete you are, the more it sounds like a skill gap and not a character critique.
Separate style from intent. One of the most common mistakes managers make in this conversation is implying the employee is creating problems on purpose — that they're being thoughtless, or inconsiderate, or difficult. They almost never are. Most people with communication style issues genuinely don't know how they're landing. Make that assumption explicit: "I don't think you realize the effect this is having, which is why I wanted to name it directly." That sentence changes the tone of the entire conversation.
If the style gap is significant, give them a model. Find an example of a well-written update, a clear meeting summary, or an effective email from someone on your team or in your organization and share it. Not as a humiliation exercise — frame it as a reference point. "This is roughly the format I'm thinking of." Concrete examples do more work than abstract descriptions of what good looks like.
Then follow up. Communication habits are deeply ingrained and they don't change after one conversation. Pick a specific upcoming deliverable — the next project update, the next presentation — and check in afterward. "How do you think that landed? I noticed you led with the ask this time, which worked well." The feedback loop needs to close more than once for the behavior to actually shift.
What you're not doing in this conversation is overhauling someone's personality. You're redirecting one specific set of habits in a specific professional context. That's routine management. The only thing that makes it feel bigger than it is — is waiting too long to have it.