The Problem We All Know
Six months ago, I sat in yet another 1:1 that felt like Groundhog Day.
"How's everything going?" I asked.
"Good, good. Just working on the sprint stuff," came the reply.
Sound familiar? We'd burn through 30 minutes discussing whatever crisis had emerged that week, completely missing the slow-burn issues that would explode two months later.
I realized I was flying blind. Making decisions based on incomplete information, missing patterns that span weeks or months, and getting surprised when someone finally hits their breaking point.
So I built a system.
The Formula
Every Friday: Engineers fill out a 2-minute health check
- Code reviews completed (quantity and complexity)
- Meeting hours (scheduled + unplanned)
- Context switches (interruptions to deep work)
- Energy level (1-10, no explanation needed)
- One question: "Anything you'd like to share?"
Every month: Before 1:1s, I combine:
- 4 weekly health checks from the engineer
- Feedback from their PM
- My own observations
This prep reveals what metrics hide.
Why This Actually Works
Most of the time, everything aligns. Engineer feels good, PM is happy, work flows. The 1:1 becomes about growth.
But 20% of the time? There's a mismatch that changes everything.
Real Example #1: Hidden Burnout
Alex's PM feedback was glowing—delivering on time, great communication, and proactive problem-solving.
But his health checks told a different story: energy dropping from 8→5 over four weeks, meeting hours creeping up, responses getting shorter.
Instead of celebrating his performance, we talked about sustainability. Turns out she was secretly covering for a struggling teammate. We fixed it before burnout hit.
Real Example #2: Process Problem
Mike's health checks looked fine, but his PM mentioned delivery delays. The mismatch made me dig deeper.
His open-ended responses kept mentioning "waiting for clarification" and "rework." Our 1:1 revealed systematic requirements changes mid-development. We fixed the process, not the person.
The Key Insight
Feedback isn't truth—it's a marker for investigation.
When patterns don't align, that's not a problem. It's valuable information.
Different perspectives show different truths:
- PM sees delivery and deadlines
- Engineer feels technical debt and process friction
- The manager observes team dynamics
All are real. All matter. Misalignment = essential conversations.
Patterns I've Learned to Read
Early Warning Signs
Burnout brewing: Consistent 100% delivery but slowly dropping energy (8→7→6→5). Open-ended responses get shorter. Still hitting deadlines but fighting harder for it.
Disengagement creeping: PM ratings stay high while health responses become generic. Professional delivery continues, but the spark dims.
Technical debt frustration: Context switches increase while energy stays stable. More mentions of "refactoring" and "cleanup." Fighting the codebase, not the work.
System-Level Issues
Process problems: Multiple engineers mentioning similar themes—"waiting for design," "unclear requirements," "too many meetings."
Team dynamics: One person's context switches spike while others stay stable (knowledge silos). Team energy trending in the same direction (organizational issues).
Communication gaps: Consistent mismatches between PM feedback and engineer self-assessment across multiple people.
The Transformation
My 1:1s went from status updates to strategic conversations. I walk in knowing:
- What patterns emerged over the month
- Where perspectives diverge and why
- Which topics need deeper exploration
No more "How's everything going?" Just informed discussions about what matters.
The Magic Question
"Anything you'd like to share?" is where real insights live:
- "Spent 3 hours debugging something that should have been documented."
- "Really enjoyed mentoring the new intern."
- "Frustrated, we keep building on shaky foundations."
- "Feeling disconnected from product vision"
After months of consistency, they trust that this space matters.
How to Start (Without Overthinking It)
Week 1-2: Introduce the concept. Explain it's for better 1:1s, not surveillance.
Week 3-4: Establish routine. Same day, same simple questions. Consistency builds trust.
Month 1: Start combining health checks with PM feedback. Look for trends, not individual data points.
Month 2-3: Refine based on what you learn. Let it evolve.
Avoid these pitfalls:
- Don't make it performance monitoring
- Don't act on single data points
- Don't overcomplicate it
- Don't forget to close the loop when you act on insights
The Bigger Impact
This changed how my team thinks about communication. Engineers became more proactive about sharing context because they knew I was paying attention to patterns.
Other managers adopted similar approaches. Our engineering org became more transparent about workload and well-being through simple, consistent data collection.
PM collaboration improved dramatically. Instead of guessing why someone seemed off, we had data to discuss.
Your Team's Reality
Here's the thing: Your team's reality isn't in velocity charts or sprint reports. It lives in the gap between what's measured and what's felt.
The system is simple: Weekly health checks + PM feedback + Pattern recognition = Prepared 1:1s
But the impact is profound. When engineers know you're paying attention to patterns (not just problems), they share differently. Deeper. Earlier. More honestly.
What's Next?
This isn't about copying my exact system. It's about creating space to see patterns in your team's reality.
Maybe your questions are different. Perhaps you can combine various data sources. Maybe you run it bi-weekly. The specifics matter less than consistency and intention.
The real question: What patterns are you creating space to see?
Top comments (0)