The CUDSA communication model: five steps for difficult conversations

The CUDSA communication model is a five-step framework for working through disagreements: Confront, Understand, Define, Search and Agree. It gives a difficult conversation a useful sequence: raise the issue, listen to different perspectives, identify the shared problem, explore options and agree what happens next.

Despite its name, ‘Confront’ does not mean becoming confrontational. It means addressing an issue directly and respectfully rather than avoiding it or making assumptions about someone’s motives.

CUDSA can be useful for everyday workplace tensions, conversations in further education (FE), and professional development discussions. It is a guide to a conversation, not a guarantee of agreement or a substitute for formal procedures.

What does CUDSA stand for?

The conflict-resolution version of CUDSA used here means:

• Confront: raise the issue using specific observations.
• Understand: explore each person’s perspective, needs and constraints.
• Define: describe the problem you need to solve together.
• Search: consider possible solutions before choosing one.
• Agree: confirm actions, responsibilities and a review point.

This differs from the expansion ‘Clarify, Understand, Develop, Share and Agree’ given in the earlier article. That wording should not be presented as an established definition without a reliable source.

A note on attribution and evidence: the model’s original authorship is not established here, and the sources below do not validate CUDSA as a complete, independently tested intervention. Claims that it was developed by ‘renowned communication experts’, or that it reliably transforms relationships, would therefore be unsupported. Treat it as a practical conversation aid. The professional and government guidance linked here supports related practices and safeguards, rather than proving the effectiveness of this particular acronym.

How the five steps work

Confront: name the issue without blaming

Start with something observable and explain why it matters. Choose a private setting and allow enough time for a response.

‘The handover notes arrived after the afternoon shift started on Tuesday and Thursday, so colleagues had to check outstanding tasks by phone’ is more useful than ‘Your communication is poor’.

Keep your opening proportionate. You are raising a concern, not delivering a verdict. Ask whether there is relevant information you have missed.

Understand: listen before proposing a fix

Invite the other person’s account with an open question: ‘What was happening from your side?’ Listen without preparing your rebuttal, then check your understanding.

Understanding does not require you to agree with every explanation. It means distinguishing what happened from your interpretation of it. A missed deadline might involve unclear priorities, missing information, workload, an accessibility barrier or a mistake.

Avoid turning this step into an interrogation. Share your own constraints too, so the conversation is reciprocal.

Define: agree what needs solving

Summarise the issue in terms both people can recognise. Move away from personal labels towards a workable problem statement.

For example: ‘We need a reliable handover before the shift changes, but the current process depends on information that sometimes arrives later.’

Check the summary explicitly: ‘Does that describe the problem fairly?’ If not, return to understanding. A solution built on a disputed diagnosis is unlikely to last.

Search: explore realistic options

Generate options before settling on one. Ask what each option would require, who would be affected and whether it addresses the underlying problem.

Possible changes might include a clearer deadline, a shared template, protected time, a different communication channel or escalation when information is missing.

Be honest about your authority. Do not offer staffing changes, timetable adjustments or spending that you cannot approve. Separate options you can trial now from those requiring another decision-maker.

Agree: make the next step specific

Turn a promising idea into a clear commitment:

• Who will do what?
• By when?
• How will you know it is working?
• What happens if the plan becomes unworkable?
• When will you review it?

Agreement does not mean identical opinions. People can disagree about the past while committing to a practical next step. If there is no agreement, record the unresolved point and decide how it will be addressed rather than pretending the conversation succeeded.

A full CUDSA dialogue in an FE college

This fictional example shows how the steps might sound in practice. Priya, a curriculum manager, meets with Tom, a lecturer, after assessment updates have reached learner support too late. Their shared aim is to provide timely support without creating unnecessary administration.

Confront

Priya: ‘Thanks for making time. I want to discuss the assessment updates for your Level 2 group. For the last two weekly deadlines, the tracker was updated on Monday rather than Friday. Learner support had already planned Monday’s sessions, so they could not use the latest information. Can we look at what happened and find a workable approach?’

Tom: ‘Yes, although I’m worried this sounds like I haven’t been doing the marking. The assessments were marked. Updating the tracker was the part I couldn’t finish.’

Priya: ‘Thank you for separating those points. My concern is when support colleagues can see the information, not an assumption that you haven’t marked the work.’

Understand

Priya: ‘What is making the Friday update difficult?’

Tom: ‘My final class finishes at four. Some learners submit during that session, and I’ve also been covering a colleague’s class on Friday mornings. I’m entering similar information in the assessment record and the support tracker.’

Priya: ‘So late submissions, cover and duplicate entry are all contributing. Have I understood that correctly?’

Tom: ‘Yes. I can usually identify who needs support by Friday, but I can’t always complete every field.’

Priya: ‘That helps. Support staff need the names and the type of help needed before they plan Monday. They may not need the complete assessment record at that point. I should check that rather than assume.’

Define

Priya: ‘Would it be fair to say the problem is getting essential support information across on Friday without requiring you to finish the full record immediately after teaching?’

Tom: ‘Yes, provided we also recognise that the extra cover has reduced the time available.’

Priya: ‘Agreed. We need a workable information handover, and I need to review the cover pressure separately.’

Search

Tom: ‘Could I send the support team an email with the names?’

Priya: ‘Possibly, but that could create another record to maintain. Could we use a short entry in the existing tracker instead?’

Tom: ‘If it only needs the learner, support topic and urgency, that would be manageable. The full assessment detail could follow on Monday.’

Priya: ‘I’ll check those fields with the support lead. Another option is moving the deadline, but that might disrupt session planning. Which would you prefer to trial?’

Tom: ‘The shorter Friday entry. If cover changes again, though, I’ll need to flag that before the deadline.’

Agree

Priya: ‘I’ll confirm the minimum fields with the support lead by Wednesday. Subject to that confirmation, shall we trial the shorter Friday update for two weeks, with the full record completed by Monday lunchtime?’

Tom: ‘Yes. I’ll flag any Friday difficulty by Thursday afternoon where I can. If something unexpected happens on Friday, I’ll let you know then.’

Priya: ‘I’ll review your cover allocation this week. Let’s meet after the two-week trial to check whether support staff received usable information and whether the process was manageable.’

Tom: ‘That works. Please send me the agreed fields and dates so I can check I’ve understood.’

The conversation does not end with a vague promise to ‘communicate better’. It produces a conditional trial, named responsibilities and a review. It also recognises that workload cannot be solved solely through better phrasing.

Another example: access to professional development

In a UK engineering business, a part-time technician notices that recent development sessions have all taken place on their non-working day. They want fair access without assuming the organiser deliberately excluded them.

They could use CUDSA like this:

• Confront: ‘The last three technical sessions were on Fridays, when I don’t work. I’ve missed training relevant to my role.’
• Understand: Ask how dates are selected. The organiser explains that the external trainer is usually available on Fridays but has not been asked about alternatives.
• Define: Identify the problem as access to relevant learning, rather than a disagreement about commitment.
• Search: Consider rotating dates, another provider, or a supported catch-up session. Check whether a recording would actually meet the learning need, especially for practical work.
• Agree: The manager will ask about alternative dates before booking the next session and confirm an appropriate catch-up arrangement for missed content.

This illustrates an important distinction: the person raising the issue should not automatically carry all the work of fixing it. Managers may need to change arrangements, not simply encourage staff to be more flexible.

Preparing to use CUDSA

Before the meeting, note the facts you can substantiate, the impact of the issue and what remains uncertain. Prepare an opening question rather than a speech.

Consider the setting and the person’s communication needs. Some people benefit from receiving the topic in advance, having time to process information or providing a written response. Where disability is relevant, consult organisational procedures and the government’s guidance on reasonable adjustments for disabled workers. Do not assume that everyone can participate equally in an unplanned face-to-face discussion.

For professional development, practise with a fictional scenario and an observer. Ask the observer whether the speaker separated facts from assumptions, listened to the answer and reached a specific next step. Assess those behaviours rather than how smoothly someone recites the acronym.

Limitations and common misunderstandings

It is not a rigid script. New information may take you from Search back to Understand. Pausing can be more useful than forcing all five steps into one meeting.

Agreement is not the same as consent freely given. A junior employee may say yes because their manager appears to expect it. Invite concerns and allow time to consider a proposal. Avoid presenting a predetermined decision as a joint search for solutions.

Not every issue belongs in an informal conversation. Allegations of harassment, discrimination, serious misconduct, safeguarding concerns or immediate safety risks may require formal reporting and protective action. Follow the relevant procedure. Acas guidance on disciplinary and grievance procedures provides a useful starting point for workplace concerns.

Some problems need structural action. Repeated overload, conflicting responsibilities or inadequate resources will not disappear because colleagues listen more carefully. The HSE Management Standards identify work-related stress factors including demands, control, support, relationships, role and change.

An unresolved conversation is not necessarily a failure. You may clarify the disagreement without resolving it. Depending on the issue, the next step could be management input, a formal process or voluntary mediation. Acas explains workplace mediation, including its role in resolving relationship difficulties.

Your next step

Use CUDSA for a manageable issue where a direct conversation is appropriate. Prepare a factual opening, stay curious about the other person’s account and finish with a specific action and review date.

The value is not in remembering five labels perfectly. It is in replacing blame and vague promises with shared understanding, realistic choices and accountable follow-through.

Sources and further reading

These sources support the wider workplace practices discussed above. They are not evidence of CUDSA’s origin or proof of its effectiveness as a named model.

• Acas: Disciplinary and grievance procedures, for handling concerns through appropriate processes.
• Acas: Mediation at work, for understanding mediation as a possible route for relationship disputes.
• HSE: Management Standards, for recognising organisational causes of work-related stress.
• GOV.UK: Reasonable adjustments for disabled workers, for considering disability-related workplace adjustments.