A skip-level meeting is a conversation between a leader and employees who normally report through another manager. It can help the senior leader hear how priorities and support arrangements work in practice. It becomes less useful when it turns into a hidden performance review of the manager or a shortcut for overturning decisions without context.
Explain the purpose before inviting people. Say what kinds of issues you want to understand, how observations will be used and what cannot be promised. Do not promise absolute confidentiality if organizational duties require appropriate escalation. Follow approved reporting routes for concerns requiring formal handling.
Set a boundary for the conversation
A practical opening is: “I want to understand what helps and hinders the work. I am not asking you to rate people here. We will distinguish observations from interpretations and decide what follow-up is appropriate.” This is an illustrative script, not a requirement for every organization.
Coordinate the general purpose with the manager without requiring employees to seek permission to raise a legitimate concern. Avoid asking the manager to screen employees’ answers. Participation arrangements and record handling should fit company policy and qualified HR guidance.
Ask about the work before asking for opinions
Which current priority is clear, and which one remains difficult to interpret?
Where does work wait for a decision or resource?
Can you describe a recent handoff that worked well?
What information or authority would have helped at a difficult handoff?
When you raise an obstacle, what happens next?
Which support commitment would make the greatest practical difference?
Ask for appropriately handled examples rather than names and accusations. Do not turn one employee’s account into a general conclusion about the department. Ask what is directly observed, what remains uncertain and what other context you would need.
Do not create a second chain of command
Employees may reasonably ask for a decision. Clarify whether you are authorized and sufficiently informed to make it, or whether it belongs with another owner. When immediate action is required, use the approved response. For ordinary operating questions, identify the route and close the loop without implying that every issue now belongs to the senior leader.
In a fictional discussion, employees say that two departments interpret the same priority differently. The senior leader can arrange a review with the responsible managers. It would be premature to announce a new rule based on one conversation while affected teams remain unheard.
Use a follow-up record people can understand
Record the issue in neutral terms, the context needed, the authorized follow-up owner and what participants should expect next. Separate a listening note from a formal investigation record. Share only what the follow-up requires and preserve appropriate confidentiality.
The speaking-up and accountability guide explains why a respectful response still needs ownership. The leadership-team charter can help leaders agree how cross-team concerns will be routed.
Close the listening loop
Tell participants what happened to the issues they raised, including when a decision has not yet been made. “We heard you” is not a substitute for explaining who is examining the question and what can be shared. Do not promise a solution or a completion date that the actual owner has not accepted.
If senior leaders repeatedly hear problems without a reliable response, the opportunity may be in the leadership system rather than the questions. Discuss that operating pattern with Shannon using appropriately anonymized examples.
About this resource: Prepared with AI-assisted drafting. Examples and templates are illustrative, not reported client outcomes, a validated assessment or a substitute for required policies and qualified supervision.