4 exercises — open 1:1s effectively, listen actively, follow up on action items, and support career growth conversations.
0 / 4 completed
1 / 4
You're opening a 1:1 with a junior engineer who started 3 months ago. You want to get a genuine read on how they're doing — not just project status. Which opening question is most effective?
Option C is the most effective 1:1 opening question for a genuine check-in:
Why it works: 1. Sets the frame explicitly — "not about tasks" — removes the assumption that this is a status meeting 2. Asks about energy, not just problems — "what's been energizing" invites positive reflection and reveals what motivates them 3. Makes space for difficulty — "harder than expected" is lower-stakes than "what's wrong?" — people are more likely to share 4. Open-ended — allows them to take the question wherever they need to go
Questions that don't work as openers: • "Any blockers?" — signals you want task status, not a real check-in • "How's the sprint going?" — same; project-focused • "Do you have any feedback for me?" — valuable but should come after they've had space to share their own experience
Good 1:1 question bank: • "What's one thing going well that we haven't talked about much?" • "What are you finding most challenging right now?" • "Is there anything you wish you had more of — feedback, autonomy, context, support?" • "What do you want to learn or try in the next month?" • "Is there anything I could do differently as your manager?"
2 / 4
Your direct report mentions they're frustrated that "nobody explains things clearly" on the team. How do you respond in a way that's helpful without being defensive or dismissive?
Option C is the active listening response for a vague frustration:
Key elements: 1. Acknowledges without agreeing or disagreeing — "useful to hear" — validates that they've said something worth discussing 2. Asks for specifics, not names — Option B ("who specifically?") risks a blame conversation and puts the person on the spot unnecessarily 3. Gives them a concrete prompt — "specific situations where you leave a meeting..." — helps them articulate vague feeling into actionable data 4. States the intent — "understand the pattern so we can actually address it, not just acknowledge it" — shows this isn't a dismissal
The vague frustration pattern: Engineers often report problems in general language ("nobody does X", "things are always unclear") when the specific issue is narrower. Your job as a manager is to help them articulate the specific situation without putting them on the defensive or forcing blame.
After you understand the specific situation: Then you can determine: Is this a communication skills gap? A process gap? A context-sharing habit? A specific person issue? Each has a different solution. Treating "nobody explains things" as a direct accusation to deflect is the wrong move.
3 / 4
At the end of a 1:1, you agreed on two action items: you'll share a relevant RFC by EOD Thursday, and they'll review it and come back with questions by next Monday. How do you follow up?
Option C is the professional 1:1 follow-up message:
What makes it complete: 1. Frames it as a follow-up — "following up from our 1:1" — links the message to the commitment 2. Delivers the artifact directly — link, not a future promise 3. Adds context — "section 3 is most relevant because..." — respects their time, doesn't make them read the whole thing to find what matters 4. Confirms the shared action item — "questions/thoughts by Monday" — makes the ask explicit and shared 5. Links to the next meeting — "I'll add this to the agenda" — creates accountability and prevents it slipping through the cracks
Why written follow-ups matter: A 1:1 with no written follow-up has an action item half-life of about 48 hours. Both you and your report will forget what was agreed. A brief follow-up message: • Creates a written record of what was agreed • Demonstrates you take their time seriously • Sets up the next meeting with context
1:1 documentation tools: • Shared Notion/Google Doc per report (most effective for building continuity) • Running notes with date-stamped entries • Action items at the end of every entry with owner and due date
4 / 4
A team member says they want to grow into a tech lead role. How do you respond in the 1:1?
Option C is the professional career development 1:1 response:
Structure: 1. Validates the goal — "great goal, appreciate you sharing" — not dismissive, not over-promising 2. Makes the path concrete — breaks "tech lead" into specific skill areas rather than leaving it vague 3. Asks for their self-assessment first — "where do you feel strongest?" — builds their ownership of the development plan 4. Commits to a concrete action — "3-month development plan" — not "I'll see what comes up" 5. Distinguishes concrete opportunities from intentions — tells them what good looks like
Why "I'll see what comes up" fails: It creates a passive waiting structure. The engineer has no visibility into what they need to do. When a tech lead opportunity arises, they haven't been prepared for it.
A good development plan for tech lead aspiration includes: • One opportunity to write a technical RFC per quarter • Leading a specific technical discussion or architecture decision • Mentoring a more junior engineer on a specific topic • Owning a scoping and estimation exercise • Tracking outcomes: did the RFC get implemented? Did the discussion go well?