A skip-level meeting is a conversation with the people who report to your managers, without their direct manager in the room. At first glance that sounds like going around the chain of command, and that is exactly why the format so often goes wrong. The topic matters to me because leadership gains distance with every level. What is really going on in a team reaches you filtered, smoothed over and late.
In this guide I will show you how to set up skip-level meetings so they build trust instead of suspicion. You get a 30-minute agenda and a list of questions. On top of that, there is a conversation guide for the tricky moment when someone criticizes their direct manager, plus clear confidentiality rules.
In short
Skip-level meetings connect you with the level below your managers and give you unfiltered insight into work, organization and strategy. They only work if the direct manager is involved beforehand and you pass on patterns rather than quotes. The biggest pitfall is quietly using the format to check up on the manager.
What you will learn in this article
- What skip-level meetings are for, and what they are explicitly not for
- How to involve the direct manager first and invite people transparently
- A 30-minute agenda and around 20 questions sorted by topic
- How to handle criticism of the manager without undermining them
- Which confidentiality rules protect trust
What is a skip-level meeting?
The name gives it away: one level gets skipped. Say you run a department with three team leads, and each team lead has six developers. With the team leads you hold regular 1:1 meetings. In a skip-level meeting, however, you talk to the eighteen people one level below. Those people are often simply called “skips”.
The difference from a 1:1 is important. The 1:1 belongs to the direct manager: it covers tasks, development, feedback and priorities. A skip-level meeting adds to that but replaces none of it. The GitLab Handbook is one of the most detailed public sources on the subject. It is clear on this point: skip-levels should improve communication across the whole organization, not just between you and your direct reports.
You can run the format one-on-one or in small groups. Individual conversations go deeper, while groups save time and lower the barrier for some people. More on that below under cadence.
What a skip-level meeting is for, and what it is not for
Before you send the first invite, be honest with yourself about what you expect from it. There are several good reasons. You want to understand how strategy and goals land further down. You also want to see obstacles that get filtered out on the way up. And people should get to know you, ask questions and see that their work is noticed.
Lena Reinhard sums it up well in her guide: the conversation serves the person you are talking to first, and you second. That order decides whether the meetings come alive or end in polite silence.
Just as important is what a skip-level meeting is not:
- Not a performance check on the manager. Anyone who uses the format to quietly collect material on team leads destroys trust on both levels.
- Not a replacement for the 1:1. Career questions, salary topics and priorities belong with the direct manager.
- Not a decision-making body. You gather impressions; you do not make decisions over the managers' heads during the conversation.
GitLab goes one step further and never records skip-levels. I find that consistent, because a running recording changes every open conversation.
1:1s run along each level; the skip-level meeting skips one.
Preparing your first skip-level meeting
Most problems with skip-levels start before the first conversation. If a team lead hears through the grapevine that her boss is now talking to her team, the damage is already done. That is why preparation comes first.
Talk to the direct manager
Talk to every manager whose team you are inviting before you start. Explain why you are introducing skip-levels, how often they will happen and how you will handle what you hear. Then ask directly: “Is there anything I should know before these conversations?” Maybe someone is going through a difficult phase, or the team has just come out of a conflict.
Also make clear what the manager gets back from you: summarized topics and patterns, but no individual statements with names attached. That way the format becomes a resource for them instead of a threat.
Invite transparently
The invitation comes from you, not from the manager. Put the purpose in it and say that the invited person is welcome to bring the topics. Here is a suggested text:
“I would like to talk directly with everyone in our area on a regular basis, to better understand how work is going for you and what I can improve as a leader. This does not replace your 1:1 with Jana. Feel free to bring topics and questions. If nothing comes to mind, I have a few questions prepared. Whatever you tell me, I will not pass on with your name attached.”
A short document with topic ideas helps as well. It removes the uncertainty about what you are even allowed to say in such a meeting. At the same time, it explicitly invites criticism.
Choose cadence and format
Recommendations on cadence differ. GitLab requires at least one skip-level per quarter. The Management Center suggests about twice a year per person, or quarterly if you only meet a few people. Lena Reinhard sees monthly as the upper limit, for example after a reorganization. My suggestion as a starting point:
| People one level down | Format | Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| up to about 15 | one-on-one, 30 minutes | quarterly |
| about 15 to 40 | one-on-one, rotating | twice a year per person |
| more than 40 | small groups of 4 to 8 people | quarterly, with changing groups |
| after a reorganization or a change of manager | one-on-one | monthly for a while |
Starting values for the cadence of skip-level meetings. Adjust honestly after the first round.
Keep an eye on your own capacity. Lena Reinhard recommends no more than two or three such meetings per week, and preferably fewer. Beyond that, it quickly turns into a chore, and people notice right away. Also, invite everyone, not just selected people. Otherwise it looks as if you have favorites or suspects.
A 30-minute skip-level meeting agenda
For the first conversation, a relaxed getting-to-know-you chat is enough. GitLab calls this a “coffee chat”. From the second meeting on, a simple structure helps so the time does not disappear into small talk:
| Minute | Phase | What it is about |
|---|---|---|
| 0–3 | Set the frame | Repeat the purpose, explain confidentiality, say that nothing will be decided today |
| 3–8 | Arrive and recognize | Personal opening; mention one concrete achievement of the person that you looked up beforehand |
| 8–22 | Their topics | The person decides; if nothing comes up, you use your questions |
| 22–27 | Context from you | Briefly explain what is happening in the organization and answer open questions about it |
| 27–30 | Wrap-up | Summarize what you are taking away, and only promise what you can deliver |
Agenda for a 30-minute skip-level meeting
The recognition at the start is not a box-ticking ritual. It shows that you prepared and know the person's work. That opens conversations more reliably than any icebreaker question. Also, do not be afraid to repeat yourself on strategy and goals. What you consider common knowledge has often only arrived one level down as a rumor.
Questions for your skip-level meeting
The questions are a parachute, not a questionnaire. Pick two or three and leave room for the conversation. The list is sorted by topic so you can vary it across meetings.
To get started
- What made you really happy at work recently?
- What are you enjoying working on most right now, and why?
- What should I know about you that is not in your profile?
About work and the organization
- What is going well, and what should we improve?
- Which process costs you the most time without adding value?
- If you could change one thing in our area right away, what would it be?
- What am I probably not seeing from where I sit?
- Whose contribution has not been noticed enough lately?
About strategy and clarity
- How would you explain to a new colleague where our area is heading?
- For which decision of the last few months are you missing the why?
- Which development in technology or the market should we take more seriously?
About working with their manager
- What do you value most about working with your manager?
- What could she do more of, and what less?
- What should I pay attention to when I support your manager through coaching?
The last question is adapted from the skip-levels GitLab describes. I like it because it steers criticism in a direction that helps the manager rather than passing judgment on them.
Feedback for you
- What should I do differently as a leader?
- Which information do you get from me too late or not at all?
- How can I help you, concretely?
If you ask for feedback, you have to be able to take the answer. Say thank you, ask for an example and do not defend yourself. I describe in more detail how to give and receive feedback well in the guide Giving feedback that lands.
When someone criticizes their direct manager
Sooner or later it happens: someone tells you that things are not going well with their team lead. This is the moment that decides whether the format builds trust or damages it. The following guide has proven useful as a stance:
- Listen and acknowledge. Say that you appreciate them raising it. It takes courage.
- Understand instead of judging. Ask about concrete situations: “Can you give me an example?” Do not evaluate, and do not agree too quickly either.
- Ask about the direct route. “Have you already talked to her about it? What would you need to bring it up?” The first route almost always goes through their own 1:1.
- Agree on next steps together. Ask whether and how you may pick up the topic. Without consent, you pass on nothing that could be traced back to the person.
- Observe in the background. A single remark is a signal, not yet a finding. If the same pattern shows up in several conversations, it is time for a coaching conversation with the manager.
There is one exception, though. If the issue is harassment, discrimination or another serious violation, listening and waiting is not enough. Then your company's rules apply, and you bring in the responsible people. Tell the person so openly, instead of promising confidentiality you cannot keep.
Confidentiality: patterns, not quotes
The simplest rule is this: you pass on patterns, not quotes. For example, you hear in several conversations that too many rounds of alignment slow down releases. That is a topic for your leadership team. Who said what exactly does not matter for that.
Small teams make this harder. With four people, even a “pattern” is quickly traced back to someone. Here it helps to bundle topics across several teams, or to pass them on only after checking with the people involved. Better to raise a topic a few weeks later than to expose a person. I also describe how much open conversations depend on rules like these in the article on psychological safety in teams.
After the meeting: follow-up that builds trust
A skip-level meeting without consequences is worse than none at all. People remember very well whether anything happened after they spoke up. So plan about 15 minutes right after each meeting:
- Write down the key topics without names in a separate list.
- Mark what you promised and add it to your tasks with a due date.
- Send a short thank-you message that picks up one concrete point from the conversation.
- After a round of conversations, give the direct manager a summary of the patterns.
- Tell the whole area which topics you heard and what will come of them, even if the answer is “nothing yet, but we are looking into it”.
The last point is the one most often forgotten. Yet it is the moment when everyone sees that speaking up was worth it.
Common skip-level meeting mistakes
Most mistakes share the same root: the format is used as a shortcut. These are the traps I see described most often:
- Starting in secret. The manager finds out last and feels bypassed.
- Solving problems on the spot. You spontaneously promise a change that the team lead should actually decide.
- Interrogation instead of conversation. You work through questions without listening or sharing anything about yourself.
- Too often. Weekly skip-levels drift into operational detail and interfere with the managers' work.
- No follow-through. What was said fizzles out, and next time people stay politely quiet.
My take
I consider skip-level meetings one of the most underrated tools once leadership spans more than one level. Even so, I would not recommend them to every organization right away. If trust between you and your managers is shaky, the format tends to amplify suspicion. In that case, your relationship with your direct reports comes first.
On one point I clearly disagree with some advice out there. Some guides explicitly recommend skip-levels as a way to collect feedback on your own managers. That is not wrong, but it is dangerous as the main goal. If you go into the conversation with that lens, you ask different questions and hear different answers. For me, the better stance is this: I want to understand how people are doing and what I can improve. Signs of leadership problems will come up anyway, but as a side effect rather than as the mission.
One more thing: the format does not replace being visible day to day. If you only show up for 30 minutes once a quarter, you only get quarterly honesty.
If you lead a distributed team, skip-level conversations go well with fixed team rituals. Which rituals work across distance is described in Leading remote teams: rituals that actually work.
FAQ
How often should a skip-level meeting take place?
For most areas, quarterly or twice a year per person works well. Monthly only makes sense temporarily, for example after a reorganization or when a new manager starts.
Can the direct manager attend the skip-level meeting?
No, their absence is what defines the format. They should, however, be informed beforehand and receive a summary of the topics without names afterwards.
What is the difference between a 1:1 and a skip-level meeting?
A 1:1 takes place with the direct manager and covers tasks, development and feedback. A skip-level meeting skips one level and is mainly about organization, strategy and obstacles.
What if nobody says anything in a skip-level meeting?
Silence is often a sign of missing trust. Share something yourself, ask concrete rather than general questions, and next time show what came of earlier input.
Your next step
If you lead managers, talk to one of them about the idea this week and ask what they think. Then plan a first round of getting-to-know-you conversations, and only decide on a fixed cadence afterwards. If you want to brush up on the basics: the series “Leadership in brief” has guides on 1:1s, feedback and psychological safety.
I am curious about your experience: have you held or attended skip-level meetings, and what made them truly valuable? Let me know in the comments.
Sources
- GitLab Handbook: Skip Level Meetings
- Lena Reinhard: Effective Skip-Level Meetings – A Guide and Templates for Managers of Managers
- The Management Center: Guide for Effective Skip-Level Meetings
This post was created with AI assistance.
👉 Next step: Preparing a first one-on-one? My question cheat sheet puts the best questions on one printable page.
Originally published on sascha-ms.de. More articles on serverless, AI in everyday development and leading tech teams: sascha-ms.de/en
Top comments (0)