Imagine opening a 1:1 with: “The handover was late again.” You remember discussing it last time. You offered advice, agreed a next step, and both left knowing what to do. Now you are back at the same point.
Before asking the person to try harder, check what actually happened to that agreement. Was it carried out? Did it help briefly? Has the situation changed? A recurring topic deserves a closer look, but it does not establish who or what is causing it.
Our suggestion: bring one concrete example, check your own promised support, and decide together what to do next. You may need more information before changing the approach. You may need to change the work, clarify a decision, arrange practice or involve someone with authority to help.
How to follow up on agreements from your last 1:1
Read the relevant note before asking the person to explain everything again. Separate what you agreed, what each of you did and what happened afterwards. If you missed your part, say so: “I still owe you the answer about cover. I will get an update today.”
Ask for a recent instance: “Where did the handover get stuck this time?” A familiar label can hide a different problem. Last time information may have arrived late; this time nobody may have had authority to approve it. Leave room for the person to correct your account.
Check an exception too: “Was there a handover that went smoothly? What was different?” Use records you are entitled to access and the person’s account. You do not need a dossier of every mistake.
Follow one issue across three conversations
Fictional example: Marta coordinates deliveries for an on-site operations team. The manager initially thinks earlier reminders will help her obtain dispatch approval. The three conversations illustrate a changing understanding, not a waiting period before taking action.
First conversation — try a reminder
Marta says an order missed dispatch while waiting for approval. They agree that she will send a reminder before the cutoff; the manager will confirm who approves late changes.
What remains uncertain: whether a reminder addresses the obstacle. The manager’s promise is also part of the agreement.
Second conversation — check why it returned
Another order misses dispatch. Marta sent the reminder. The manager has confirmed the usual approver, but has not clarified late changes.
“I confirmed who approves ordinary orders, but left the exception unresolved. Where did this one get stuck?”
“The customer changed it after the cutoff. Both teams said the other needed to approve it.”
They check the order record together: the change arrived after the cutoff. The manager contacts both team leads to agree who can decide these exceptions and promises Marta an update by Thursday, even if it remains unresolved. Marta has no new task from this conversation.
Why the response changes: the reminder happened, but the authority question remained open. Another reminder would leave that question unanswered.
Third conversation — check the effect
A temporary approval route is now in place. The next late change gets a decision, but Marta reports that finding the approver still takes too long. The manager asks what happened and checks whether the temporary arrangement can cover the relevant shift. A decision on one order is progress; they have not yet established that the recurring delay is resolved.
What to carry forward: what improved, what still gets in the way and who will check the remaining gap. If the next example contradicts their explanation, they revise it.
First conversation
A dispatch approval is late.
Would an earlier reminder help?
Marta sends a reminder; the manager checks approval authority.
Second conversation
The reminder happened; the exception is still unresolved.
Who can approve a change after the cutoff?
The manager contacts both team leads and updates Marta by Thursday.
Third conversation
A decision arrives, but finding the approver still takes too long.
Does the temporary route cover the relevant shift?
The manager checks coverage; they review what remains unresolved.
Choose a response that fits what you learned
The example concerns decision authority. Your conversation may point somewhere else. These are possible responses to discuss, not categories for employees.
- The agreed step never happened: ask what prevented it, including whether you provided the promised support. Clarify the expectation and what is feasible now.
- Two priorities compete: decide what can wait, or involve the person who can make that tradeoff. Asking for better organization does not decide which deadline matters more.
- The work requires an unfamiliar skill: agree a specific practice opportunity, feedback and time for it. Check progress in the work rather than treating attendance at training as proof of learning.
- A workaround helps only once: find out which condition stayed unchanged and who has authority to address it. Keep an appropriate temporary measure while you work on that question.
Ask what help the person wants before taking over. They may need a decision, a contact or time to think aloud. Listening need not create another task. If something requires action within your role, explain what you need to do and why.
When an employee repeatedly misses an agreed step
You have checked the expectation, the time and resources available, and your own support. The agreed step still did not happen. You can address that directly without deciding what it says about the person’s character.
A separate fictional example, a client-services team: “For each of the last two reviews, we agreed that you would update the client plan beforehand. Both updates were due by Tuesday. Both times it was still unchanged when the review started, so we used outdated dates. What happened?” Listen before choosing the response; their account may change what you thought you had checked.
If the expectation remains reasonable, state it plainly: “I need the plan updated before the next review. If something puts that at risk, tell me before the deadline so we can decide what to change.” Ask the person to explain how they will approach it and what support they need. Confirm the next step, owner, timing and review point; keep any disagreement visible rather than recording consent that was not given.
At the review, discuss the actual work and whether the support arrived. Recognize improvement. If it remains unmet, address the continuing gap and explain the next step under your organization’s process. Do not keep resetting the date without discussing what will change. No fixed number of reminders determines when a formal route is required; use it promptly when the situation calls for it.
Agree what you will check next
Choose a review point that fits the work: the next relevant handover may tell you more than the next calendar meeting. Agree what would count as useful progress and what would prompt an earlier response. Do not wait for a 1:1 if a decision cannot wait.
An update could be: “The next late change received approval before dispatch. We still need cover for the evening shift.” That keeps improvement and unfinished work visible together. If it did not help, check whether the change happened as intended before choosing another explanation.
Ask directly whether the obstacle remains. The person no longer mentioning it does not demonstrate that it has gone away. Keep the review proportionate; avoid creating a new reporting burden just to maintain your notes.
Be honest when the answer is outside your control
If another team or budget holder must decide, take a clear question to them, explain the work impact using necessary information, and say when you will update the employee. Raising a request is not approval. If the answer is no, explain what remains possible and when reconsideration would be useful. Do not keep renewing a promise you cannot deliver.
For urgent safety concerns or formal performance, conduct, harassment or health matters, use the appropriate company process and specialist support promptly. Repeated discussion is not a reason to postpone that route. Ordinary coaching can continue where appropriate, but it does not replace formal requirements.
A short note for the next conversation
Use only the lines that help. Keep it in approved storage and invite corrections; a different interpretation can remain unresolved.
The specific situation we returned to:
What we previously agreed, including my support:
What happened and what remains uncertain:
What we will change or check, if anything:
Who will act or give an update, and when:
What would show progress or require an earlier response:
When we will review what happened:
The preparation guide and checklist can help you bring the relevant context into the next 1:1. One question to ask yourself is: “With what we know now, should I respond differently?”
ModoPersona helps you revisit recorded context and commitments as you prepare privately for your next 1:1.
Research behind the distinction
Research finding — workarounds in hospitals
Hospital observations distinguished immediate fixes from efforts to prevent recurrence. This was not a 1:1 intervention. Tucker and Edmondson, 2003.
Research finding — earlier responses and speaking up
Interviewees in one Irish hospital described withholding concerns after earlier dismissals or inaction. These accounts cannot establish why someone on your team is reluctant to speak. O’Donovan et al., 2021.
The conversation, response options and review note are our editorial suggestions, not tested protocols. Use the distinction to ask better questions; it cannot identify the cause of a particular recurring problem.
- Anita L. Tucker, Amy C. Edmondson (2003). Why Hospitals Don’t Learn from Failures: Organizational and Psychological Dynamics That Inhibit System Change. California Management Review, 45(2), 55–72. Author copy.
- 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.