Think of someone whose work you rarely have to chase. What did you last learn about how the work is going for them? If all you can recall is “everything’s fine”, consider whether you know enough about their current work and the support they want. There may be nothing that needs changing.
Our suggestion: use the next conversation to check what would help, if anything. More contact, a new opportunity, recognition, fewer interruptions or no change are all possible answers. You do not need to divide your time into identical portions.
Check what you know
Look back at an ordinary working week. Whose work came up because something was urgent? With whom did you discuss an interest, a useful contribution or a decision they needed? Look across shifts and locations too. This is a prompt to examine your own attention, not to score people by how often they speak.
A new starter may need frequent help. Someone experienced may appreciate space. Neither tells you what another colleague wants. Start with a question you cannot yet answer, or a commitment you have left open.
Research finding: low voice does not establish withheld concerns.
Morrison’s review (2023) distinguishes low observed voice from withholding concerns. It cannot explain an individual’s short answer.
Why “give people more attention” is incomplete advice
Our suggestion: there is a real tension here. Leaving someone room to work can express trust. Making time when nothing is wrong can give them a chance to discuss something outside today’s tasks. Either approach can suit the situation; the useful question is whether the person can get the support and decisions they need without having to manufacture an emergency.
Consider two experienced colleagues. One wants a short, predictable chance to discuss work they are otherwise doing independently. The other already has that access and finds extra check-ins disruptive. Adding the same meeting to both calendars would answer different needs with the same remedy. Equally, “they know where to find me” leaves unanswered whether your availability fits their shift or whether a previous request still needs your response.
Ask without deciding what the answer should be
“You mentioned wanting to understand how we plan the shifts. Is that still of interest, or has something else become more useful?”
If you have no earlier topic to return to: “Does the support you get from me suit the work at the moment? We can leave things as they are, too.” Give the person room to introduce their own topic, answer later or say no. Avoid turning a routine check into a demand for a career ambition or a private disclosure.
If you owe an answer, acknowledge it: “I said I would check that and haven’t come back to you. Here is what I know so far.” A better question does not replace an overdue action.
Research finding: past responses mattered in qualitative hospital interviews.
O’Donovan and colleagues (2021) report reluctance after earlier dismissals. These 34 interviews in one Irish hospital do not test our questions.
Our suggestion: check your own unfinished response before assuming the person has nothing to say. If nothing is outstanding, there is no missing promise to invent.
The same question can lead to different next steps
This warehouse example is fictional. Sam handles dispatch reliably. The manager’s conversations with Sam have become brief checks that orders went out. Another colleague is learning a new role and needs more help; that help is still necessary.
Before their next 1:1, the manager notices an old question from Sam about planning shifts. Instead of assuming Sam wants more responsibility, the manager asks whether it still interests them. These are two possible continuations, not categories of employee.
If Sam still wants to learn
Sam: “Yes. I want to understand the planning, not take it over.”
Manager: “Would observing one planning session help?”
The manager will check access and cover, then report back. No new duty is agreed yet.
If Sam wants fewer interruptions
Sam: “Not now. I’d like to get the orders out without stopping to answer questions all morning.”
Manager: “Which questions could we save for one conversation, and which need an answer straight away?”
They agree to try grouping routine questions and review whether it helps. Urgent help stays available.
Sam could also want their contribution acknowledged, or prefer the current arrangement. Ask what would be useful rather than promising a project or adding meetings automatically. Where an opportunity affects other people, check capacity and make access to it fair; enthusiasm alone does not authorize a new assignment.
Suppose Sam says the current arrangement works. That is a useful answer: the manager can leave it in place and agree that either person may reopen the question. There is no need to uncover a hidden ambition to justify the conversation. If the manager has a specific concern, such as a handover decision that has repeatedly arrived too late, that deserves a separate, concrete discussion. “I need us to resolve this before dispatch” is different from deciding that Sam needs more attention in general.
If Sam does want to observe planning, the next step is still a proposal. A planning session may contain information Sam is not authorized to see, or the only available session may clash with dispatch. An explanation using a suitable example, another date or no change for now could be more useful. Interest gives the manager something to investigate; it does not settle the arrangement.
If you agree on a learning opportunity, work out how to make time for it.
Keep support workable for the whole team
More time with one person may be appropriate during a transition. Explain how people can get help, and keep ordinary access available to colleagues whose work attracts fewer urgent questions. You can explain that arrangement without sharing anyone’s private circumstances.
Research finding: relationship differences are not a rule for dividing meeting minutes.
Martin and colleagues (2018) review context and fairness in differing manager–employee relationships. They do not test equal meeting time.
Our suggestion: review whether the support is useful and reachable, rather than matching everyone’s minutes. If your time cannot cover what is needed, discuss priorities or additional support with your own manager. Do not solve the gap by quietly withdrawing necessary help elsewhere.
For a change in contact, agree a cadence together. For a change in direction, explore what the person wants from work. Formal performance, conduct, health, harassment or legal matters belong in the relevant company process, with HR or specialist support where needed.
What would make you change the arrangement?
Our suggestion: distinguish a temporary reason for more contact from a pattern you have stopped questioning. Extra help during a role change might make sense until particular decisions become familiar. If the same people always get access to interesting work because you happen to speak with them more, look at how opportunities are offered, not just how long meetings last.
Ask what would tell both of you the arrangement needs revisiting: a change of responsibilities, an unanswered decision, or repeated interruptions to work that was previously manageable. These are possible prompts, not a scorecard. A quiet week by itself tells you very little. You also cannot make every preference fit at once; explain constraints and agree what you can actually provide, without presenting an unavailable option as a promise.
A private reflection before your next conversation
Our suggestion: use the lines that help. Keep this brief and work-related; avoid speculation, sensitive details or comparisons that rank colleagues. Private notes still need appropriate handling; see the notes guide.
What I last learned from this person, and when:
What I’m assuming and still need to check:
An answer or action I still owe, if any:
A question that leaves the answer open:
What they said would help, and what they want to keep as it is:
What I will do or update them about next, if needed:
The preparation checklist can help you bring that question back. ModoPersona brings existing notes and commitments into 1:1 preparation. Treat them as reminders to check with the person, not a complete account of their needs.
Sources
- Robin Martin, Geoff Thomas, Alison Legood, Silvia Dello Russo (2018). Leader–member exchange (LMX) differentiation and work outcomes: Conceptual clarification and critical review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(2), 151–168. Full text.
- Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison (2023). Employee Voice and Silence: Taking Stock a Decade Later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 79–107. Full text.
- Róisín O’Donovan, Aoife De Brún, Eilish McAuliffe (2021). Healthcare Professionals Experience of Psychological Safety, Voice, and Silence. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 626689. Full text.