The LEAPS model of communication

The LEAPS model of communication is a practical memory aid for handling difficult conversations: Listen, Empathise, Ask, Paraphrase and Summarise. It helps you understand someone’s concern before moving towards a response or next step.

A manager discussing workload, an FE tutor responding to frustration or an assessor exploring a learner’s support needs can use this sequence to slow the conversation down and check understanding. It is not a script for winning arguments or making people comply.

Crucially, LEAPS supports rather than replaces safeguarding, emergency or organisational procedures. Where someone may be at risk, appropriate action takes priority over completing the sequence.

What does LEAPS stand for?

This article uses the listening-focused version of LEAPS:

• Listen: give the person space to explain.
• Empathise: acknowledge their feelings or perspective without assuming you know exactly how they feel.
• Ask: use relevant questions to clarify what matters.
• Paraphrase: restate the main message in your own words and check it.
• Summarise: bring together the key points and clarify what happens next.

A note on accuracy: the previous article described LEAPS as listening, empathy, articulation, persuasion and stewardship, attributing it to Dr James E. Lukaszewski. That attribution and expansion have not been verified and should not be presented as established facts. The listening sequence above is used in communication and conflict-management training, but a definitive original source is not established here.

Treat LEAPS as a useful practice framework, not as a separately validated intervention with guaranteed results. Wider guidance supports skills such as respectful communication and de-escalation, but that does not demonstrate the effectiveness of this particular acronym.

How to use the five steps

Before beginning, check whether the conversation is safe and whether you are the right person to handle it. For a routine disagreement, choose a suitable place and allow enough time. If a conversation could become unsafe, follow your organisation’s arrangements rather than moving somewhere isolated.

Listen without preparing your rebuttal

Start with an invitation such as: “Talk me through what has happened from your point of view.” Then allow a response without immediately correcting details or proposing a solution.

Put distractions aside, leave pauses and notice whether the person needs more processing time. You can listen attentively without demanding eye contact. Eye contact, facial expression and speaking style vary across individuals, cultures and disabilities.

If time is limited, be honest: “I have ten minutes now. We can identify anything urgent, then arrange time to discuss the rest.”

Listening does not mean allowing threats or abuse to continue. You can acknowledge a concern while setting a boundary around behaviour.

Empathise without agreeing to everything

Empathy means recognising the person’s experience, not endorsing every allegation or accepting an unreasonable demand.

Try: “That sounds frustrating, especially when you thought the deadline had changed.”

Avoid “I know exactly how you feel”, which can sound presumptuous, or “Calm down”, which may intensify frustration. If you are uncertain, check: “Have I understood that you felt left out of the decision?”

You can acknowledge an impact while reserving judgement about the facts: “I can hear that this has affected your confidence. I need to understand what happened before deciding what action is appropriate.”

Ask to clarify, not interrogate

Begin with open questions, then narrow them where needed:

• “Which part of the process caused the difficulty?”
• “What have you already tried?”
• “What would help you take the next step?”
• “Is there an immediate deadline we need to consider?”

Ask one question at a time and explain why you need sensitive information. Avoid accusatory wording such as “Why didn’t you just tell someone?”

For a safeguarding disclosure, ordinary exploratory questioning has limits. Ask only what is necessary to establish immediate safety and follow your reporting procedure. Do not investigate, test the person’s account or seek unnecessary detail.

Paraphrase and invite correction

Paraphrasing checks meaning during the conversation. It is more useful than repeating someone’s words mechanically.

For example: “So the main problem is not the new system itself. It is being expected to use it before you have had training. Is that right?”

Leave space for correction. The person might say: “Partly, but I also cannot access it from the workshop.” That changes the response you need to make.

Keep facts and interpretations separate. “You believe the allocation was unfair” is different from confirming that it was unfair before checking the evidence.

Summarise and make the next step clear

A summary brings together the concern, any remaining uncertainty and the agreed or required action.

For example: “We have identified two issues: access and training. I will raise the access problem with IT today. We will arrange a practice session before your next assessment. I will update you tomorrow, even if the access issue is not resolved.”

Name who will do what and when. Where necessary, explain what you cannot promise. Send a brief written follow-up if useful, using the appropriate system and sharing personal information only with those who need it.

Example: a workplace conversation about workload

These examples are illustrative scenarios, not documented success stories.

A team leader in a UK customer service team notices that an adviser has missed two reporting deadlines. The adviser says: “Every time someone is off, their work lands on me. Then I get chased for being late.”

Instead of opening with a warning, the team leader uses LEAPS:

Listen: “Talk me through what you were covering last week.” The adviser explains the additional calls and unresolved cases.

Empathise: “I can see why being chased felt unfair when you were covering extra work.”

Ask: “Which tasks were displaced? When did it become clear the report would be late?”

Paraphrase: “You could manage the normal caseload, but covering absences meant the report slipped. You also were not sure which task I wanted prioritised. Have I got that right?”

Summarise: “For this week, I will reallocate two cases and confirm the priorities in writing. Please flag any remaining conflict by Wednesday lunchtime. We will review the workload on Friday.”

The conversation does not remove accountability. The manager can still explain reporting requirements and discuss how delays should be raised. The difference is that they first establish whether the difficulty concerns capacity, unclear priorities, training or conduct.

If the discussion reveals a formal grievance, discrimination concern or health-related support need, the manager should use the relevant procedure rather than trying to settle everything informally. Acas guidance on mediation describes a separate, voluntary approach to some workplace disputes. Using LEAPS does not make a manager an impartial mediator.

Example: an FE learner challenges assessment feedback

A 17-year-old learner approaches a tutor after receiving a referral on an assignment: “You have failed me because you do not like me. Everyone else got help.”

The tutor avoids debating the allegation in front of the class: “I can hear you are upset. We can discuss the feedback somewhere quieter, following our usual arrangements.”

They then work through the conversation:

Listen: “Tell me which part of the feedback you want us to look at first.”

Empathise: “Getting this result after working on the assignment sounds disappointing.”

Ask: “Which instructions were unclear? What support did you understand was available?”

Paraphrase: “You thought you had met the practical criteria, and you did not realise the written explanation needed more evidence. Is that the main issue?”

Summarise: “I will show you where the evidence does not yet meet the criteria. We will check the resubmission arrangements and available support. If you still disagree with the decision, I will explain the assessment appeals process.”

The tutor must not promise a pass or change assessment standards simply to end the disagreement.

Now suppose the learner adds: “I cannot do the work at home because someone there is hurting me.” The priority changes. The tutor should listen calmly, avoid investigative questions and explain that they need to share the concern with the safeguarding lead. They must not promise secrecy.

For schools and colleges in England, Keeping children safe in education sets out statutory safeguarding guidance. Providers elsewhere in the UK should follow their nation’s requirements and local procedures. LEAPS may support a calm initial response, but safeguarding action must not wait until the conversation feels complete.

Safety boundaries and limitations

LEAPS is most useful when a conversation remains possible. It cannot compensate for unsafe staffing, persistent bullying, inaccessible systems or a failure to act on concerns.

Stop the sequence when safety requires it

If someone threatens violence, blocks an exit or creates immediate danger, prioritise safety. Follow your emergency arrangements, seek assistance and contact emergency services where necessary. Do not continue questioning someone simply to complete the acronym.

Where safe to do so, a boundary might sound like: “I want to help with the problem, but I cannot continue while you are threatening me. I am ending this conversation and getting support.”

The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on violence and aggression at work places communication within a wider approach to managing workplace risk. Staff should not be expected to manage foreseeable danger through listening skills alone.

Do not confuse empathy with consent or confidentiality

Acknowledging distress does not mean agreeing to a request, overlooking misconduct or withholding a safeguarding report. Explain relevant limits plainly: “I will handle this sensitively, but I may need to share it with the people responsible for responding.”

Do not pressure someone to accept your summary. Record significant disagreement accurately and explain available options, including formal processes where appropriate.

Adapt the approach to the person

Offer accessible alternatives such as written questions, a quieter setting, breaks or appropriate communication support. Do not interpret limited eye contact, silence or difficulty speaking as unwillingness to engage.

Some people will need time before they can discuss an issue. Others may prefer to explain in writing. The aim is understanding, not a particular style of performance.

Summary and next step

For professional development, practise a low-risk scenario with a colleague. Let one person raise a realistic concern while the other listens, acknowledges feelings, asks a few questions, checks meaning and summarises. An observer can note interruptions, assumptions and unclear commitments.

Ask afterwards: Did the speaker feel understood? Were boundaries clear? Did the next step address the concern rather than merely end the conversation?

The practical takeaway: use LEAPS to understand before responding, then act within your role. Choose one routine conversation this week and focus on checking your understanding before offering advice. Follow through on any commitment you make. A clear summary has little value if nothing happens afterwards.

Sources and further reading

These sources support the wider practice and safety boundaries discussed here. They do not establish LEAPS’s original authorship or validate the acronym as a standalone intervention.

• Acas: Mediation at work, for understanding the role and limits of voluntary workplace mediation.
• Department for Education: Keeping children safe in education, for statutory safeguarding guidance applying to schools and colleges in England. Check the version currently in force.
• Health and Safety Executive: Violence and aggression at work, for employers’ wider responsibilities in preventing and managing work-related violence.