Skip to main content

We hold check-ins. Why does the same problem keep returning?

Prepared by the Flawian team · Reviewed .

Often because a check-in ends without a response and a later look at the work. Describe one work event, ask for the other person's account, then agree a response and when to check again. In an example repair shop, a promised collection date was missing from the planning list, so the owner agreed to add dates and review later jobs.

Principle and explanation

A meeting creates time to talk. Useful feedback connects something that happened with a response and a chance to see what followed. More meetings alone do not close that loop.

Start with an event you can describe

Describe the event and its effect before deciding what it says about the person. The Center for Creative Leadership's Situation–Behavior–Impact approach makes this distinction and invites the other person's account. Hearing that account adds context; it does not give certainty about private intentions.

Mia can identify the two jobs, when the sequence changed and what needed repacking. Calling the owner disrespectful would add a judgment that those records do not establish.

A response does not have to solve everything immediately

A response might be an agreed change, a request for information, support, thanks, or a clear explanation of a constraint. Acas, the workplace advice service for England, Scotland and Wales, describes regular work conversations as opportunities to discuss achievements, improvement and support. Merely writing down the issue leaves unclear what happens next.

For Mia and the owner, the next step is modest: add promised collection dates before the morning order is set. The owner takes responsibility for that addition. They agree when to inspect later cases rather than announcing that the problem is already solved.

Choose a setting that fits the subject

The planning-list problem can be discussed with those who use the list. A sensitive personal matter needs an appropriate private conversation and restricted notes. A group meeting is not automatically confidential, and a quiet participant is not evidence of disloyalty or a wish to leave.

At follow-up, inspect the agreed work, including exceptions. In this case a genuinely urgent repair may still change the sequence. That is a case to understand, not automatic proof that the agreement failed.

Worked example

Mia gives feedback to the owner

In a repair shop, Mia has laid out parts for the next job. On both Tuesday and Thursday, the owner changes the job order after that preparation. Both jobs need repacking before the team can begin the replacement work.

At their check-in, Mia describes those two events and the repacking. The owner explains that a promised collection date was missing from the planning list. That detail gives them something specific to change; neither person has to guess the other's character.

The owner agrees to put promised dates on the list before setting the morning order. They keep an explicit route for urgent changes. At the next check-in, they will examine which jobs changed and why, alongside the repacking records.

The conversation has produced a response and a later check. It has not yet proved that repacking decreased. The lesson is to follow what happened after the conversation, not count the meeting as the result.

  • The people and events are fictional. No measured improvement or claim about either person's motivation is supplied.
  • The owner can update the planning list, and the relevant job records are available to both participants.
  • The later review is still to happen. Urgent changes remain possible.
From an observed event to a checkable response
StageWhat Mia and the owner can say
ObservationTuesday and Thursday's prepared jobs were changed and repacked
ContextThe owner reports a missing collection date on the list
ResponseOwner adds promised dates before the morning sequence is set
Later checkInspect changed jobs, reasons and repacking; outcome not yet known

Common misconceptions

A weekly meeting proves we have useful feedback.
Frequency says when you meet. Mia's example needs an observation, a response and later evidence to show what the meeting did.
Feedback should only go from the manager to the worker.
Mia sees a consequence of the owner's decisions. Her account is relevant to improving the planning process.
If no new issue is raised, the team does not trust me.
Silence has several possible explanations. Check what support or follow-through is needed instead of diagnosing another person's intent.

First step

Bring one recent event, then agree the next check

Choose a specific work event you can describe without a character judgment. Ask the other person what you are missing. Agree a feasible response, who follows it and when to look at actual work again. Record only what the task needs and keep sensitive matters private.

Sources