How Good Are Your Manager/Employee Check-ins?

kara • January 22, 2024

One-on-one touch points are the meetings that managers and employees have with each other on a regular or semi-regular basis. In our experience, at most organizations, just having the meeting at all is considered success, but our point of view is that these one-on-one touch points are one of the most powerful mechanisms through which managers can engage and inspire their employees. That means, we care about optimizing these touch points.


In our mind, optimized manager/employee check-ins are meaningful conversations through which managers and their employees develop authentic connection and trust. We know from our coaching conversations that this isn’t always the case. Managers are often overextended, underprepared, or unable to focus their full attention during the touch points.


For many of the leaders we coach, they’re doing the best they can as their company deals with massive organizational instability and change. There are some layoffs, and then all of a sudden they’re managing (what feels like) 100 people when they used to manage 5. It’s hard for employees to get focused and dedicated attention from their managers, and even harder for those same employees to give their managers feedback, especially if the check-ins are sporadic and sub-optimized.



Since check-ins are so important, we wanted to make sure managers are empowered with a diagnostic tool to evaluate the quality of the one-on-one conversations they’re having with the employees. Managers can complete the diagnostic to evaluate how well they’re doing in leading these critical meetings.



What do you notice about your answers? There are likely some things you’re already doing well as well as areas of improvement. Do an experiment and change one thing up differently for your next check-in.

Share this article

Recent Posts

By Kara Davidson • October 5, 2026
It's never been more important to be yourself. Kara's brother learned this while hiring for his company. He was eight interviews into a search for a new position at this company, and every one of them wasn’t who they said they were on their resume. Some invented their experience. Others leaned so hard on AI that he couldn't find the actual person behind the answers. He was aggravated trying to figure out what was real and what wasn’t. All he knew for sure was that he couldn’t trust his own read, so he handed the search to a recruiter. That's what happens when people can't tell what's real. They get suspicious of everyone. And when one thing about someone seems off, we doubt the whole person: the experience, the credentials, the firm handshake.
By Stephanie Judd • September 21, 2026
Stephanie had a mentor who went straight to ‘here’s what I would do’ the moment Stepanie asked for advice. Although this mentor was extremely well-meaning, the advice she gave was irrelevant and outside of Stephanie’s reality. “Take your clients to the ballet,” she said. But Stephanie lived nowhere near a ballet company, and her clients weren’t local to her. If this mentor had just paused to ask Stephanie a few questions, her insights would have been a lot better formulated.  Most people leading a discussion default to questions that inform them rather than explore possibilities. The difference is subtle, but the impact is huge.
By Stephanie Judd • September 8, 2026
Leaders have to have all the answers, right?  Kara had a coaching client who was facing a big org change and needed to keep her people motivated. She was hyper focused on what she should say and how she’d provide her people with answers. She knew this was a critical moment for building and maintaining trust and engagement on the team. But when Kara asked, “What would you be looking for from your leader in a moment like this?” the client said, “For them to listen to me.” Then why do we try to have all the answers? Why don’t we listen?
By Stephanie Judd • August 3, 2026
Letitia came to Stephanie stressed. She ran a monthly working group and every month felt the same: low attendance, low engagement, and a Q&A section that was mostly just awkward silence. She spent hours preparing a presentation nobody seemed to care about and couldn't figure out what she was doing wrong. When Stephanie asked her to walk through the format, Letitia said they do forty minutes of presentation followed by twenty minutes of Q&A. She selected the topic each month, recruited a presenter (often herself by default because no one ever volunteered), and carried the entire session on her back. Stephanie pointed out something that surprised Letitia, even though it felt obvious to her in retrospect: the format was inadvertently creating a group of observers, not active collaborators. The meeting was designed in a way that encouraged passivity.
Show More