Before you walk into the conversation you have been avoiding, walk through it on paper. Name the real issue, name the evidence, name your own bias, and name the ways this meeting could go wrong so you have a plan when it does.
A pre-mortem is a conversation you have with yourself before you have the hard conversation with the educator. You imagine the meeting has already happened and gone badly. Then you work backwards from "what went wrong" to surface the things you had not prepared for while you still have time to fix them.
Module 7 makes the case plainly. The reason most performance conversations go sideways is not that the Service Manager picked the wrong words in the room. It is that they walked in with the wrong frame. Either they had not named the real issue to themselves honestly, or they had not landed on what they actually wanted to come out of the meeting, or they had underestimated how the educator was going to respond. The pre-mortem catches all three of those before the meeting, not after.
This is not the plan for what you say. The COIN Feedback Planner does that. This is the plan for how you prepare. Do the pre-mortem first. Then plan the COIN. Then run the meeting.
There are three patterns, and they are all about the leader, not the educator.
Pattern one: they rehearse the words but not the response. They think through how they will open the meeting, how they will describe the issue, how they will ask for change. None of that falls apart in the meeting. What falls apart is the thirty seconds after the educator says "actually, that is not what happened" or goes silent or starts crying. The leader has no plan for the thirty seconds, so they fill it with their own discomfort.
Pattern two: they have not named the real issue to themselves. They have been carrying the concern for weeks, but they have only ever described it to themselves in vague operator language ("they are just not at the standard we need"). When they try to name it in the meeting, it comes out fuzzy, the educator pushes back on the fuzziness, and the leader either backs down or reaches for a harder example they had not pre-checked.
Pattern three: they walk in wanting to be liked. This is Ruinous Empathy from Radical Candor. They care about the educator and they do not want to damage the relationship. So they soften the message until the educator leaves the meeting not quite sure what was actually being asked. Two weeks later nothing has changed because nothing was clearly requested.
The worksheet walks you through six stages in order. Each one feeds the next.
There is also an AI stress test at the end. Once you have filled the whole worksheet in, press the button and the AI reads your prep back and flags weak spots. Use it or do not use it. The worksheet works either way.
Not every feedback conversation needs a pre-mortem. If it is a small in-the-moment correction or a piece of positive feedback, use the Feedback Scripts Library and say it now. Do not wait.
Do the pre-mortem when the conversation meets any of these tests.
Once you have filled the worksheet in, the AI reads your answers and does four things.
The AI does not rewrite your prep. It does not tell you what to say. It stress-tests what you have written and hands back a short note you can walk into the meeting with. Use it as a second pair of eyes, not a substitute for thinking.
Switch to the worksheet tab and fill in the six stages. Most leaders take 25 to 45 minutes the first time, 15 to 20 the second time. Print it when you are done, mark it up, walk in with it.
Strip the concern down to one sentence a Service Manager could say out loud in the room. Not "performance concerns", not "issues around practice". The plain version. This is the sentence you are going to lead the meeting with.
One sentence. No HR language. No qualifiers. If you cannot say it out loud without flinching, rewrite it until you can.
The softer version you have been using in your own head. Writing it next to the plain version shows you the gap between what you have been rehearsing and what the educator actually needs to hear.
Impact on children, families, the team, the program, NQF compliance, or the educator themselves. Specific. This is the answer to "so what" if the educator asks you.
Informal feedback, one-on-one mentions, training, emails. Dates matter. Module 7 says you should not escalate to a formal conversation if you have not raised it informally first.
If you cannot list three specific observations with dates and context, you are not ready for the meeting. Go back to the floor, or wait until the next instance, and come back to the worksheet then.
Things you have been telling yourself about the educator's motivation, attitude or capability that you have not actually seen. Write them down here so they do not leak into the meeting as if they were facts.
Kim Scott's model. Where do you sit on the care-challenge axis going into this specific conversation? Most leaders have a default, and in a specific hard conversation with a specific educator they drift further into that default. Name it.
Pick the one that describes you in this conversation, not the leader you would like to be. The worksheet works off the honest one.
Care personally, challenge directly. The goal. Pick this only if you know you can genuinely do it with this educator.
High care, low challenge. You soften the message so much the educator leaves not quite sure what was being asked. Most common default.
Low care, high challenge. You are clear on what is wrong but the educator shuts down because they do not feel seen.
Low care, low challenge. You avoid the conversation, hint at it, or say things that are not quite true to keep the peace.
The sentence you know needs to be said but that you have been leaving out of every rehearsal. Write it here. You do not have to lead with it in the meeting, but you need to have named it to yourself first.
Words you are padding. "A bit", "just", "sort of", "if you don't mind". Every one of those is Ruinous Empathy. List the ones you catch yourself rehearsing.
Care before challenge. What do you know about what they are holding right now that might shape how the conversation lands. You do not excuse the pattern, but you name it to yourself so it does not blindside you.
The meeting does not derail at the opening. It derails at the thirty seconds after the educator responds. Name what you will do for each of the four responses that most often tip these meetings over.
Given how you know yourself under pressure. Do you fill silences with your own words. Do you start apologising. Do you go cold. Do you agree to things to end the meeting. Name it so you can watch for it.
If you cannot name what good looks like at the end of the meeting, do not book the meeting. Module 7 is specific: you should leave with agreement on what needs to change, by when, with consequences if it does not, and a review date.
The specific thing the educator walks out having said out loud, in their own words, that they are going to do.
Module 7: name this in the meeting so the educator knows the stakes. Not as a threat, as a clarity move. The educator needs to understand what happens next if the pattern continues.
Module 7 says: if the educator needs training, time, a buddy, or a system change to succeed, name it in the meeting. A performance conversation without offered support is a set-up.
Module 7: the 48-hour written follow-up is not optional. It captures what was agreed, protects the educator and the service, and sets up the review. Sketch it in the pre-mortem. Finalise it right after the meeting.
Draft the rough shape of the email or record of discussion now. Leave the specifics (dates, what was actually agreed) until after the meeting.
Approved Provider, Educational Leader, HR, payroll, Fair Work adviser if risk is elevated. Not everyone needs to know, but think through the list.
Fair Work general protections claim if the meeting is handled badly. Bullying complaint. Other educators noticing. Children's outcomes if the issue does not resolve. Name the top one or two.
These conversations are emotionally heavy on you too. Book 15 minutes with your manager, a peer Service Manager, a coach, or a trusted sounding board within 24 hours of the meeting. Not to vent. To check how it was received and what to watch for.
Once you have filled the worksheet in, press the button. The AI reads your answers and flags the risks you have not named, the likely bias pattern given your language, a suggested opening sentence, and three things to pre-commit to in the room. It does not rewrite your prep. It is a second pair of eyes.
Print this page (Ctrl+P), choose Save as PDF as the destination, and clear Headers and footers under More settings for a clean export you can walk into the meeting with.