This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility: Skip-level meetings (SLMs) seem common in some work environments but unheard of and norm-breaking in others. They entail both benefits and risks for employees, bypassed and skip-level managers, and organizations.
Their effects also depend on context, as my qualitative exploratory study, published in IEEE Engineering Management Review, suggested. The study incorporated the perspectives and experiences of 25 first-tier software engineering managers across organizations regarding SLMs between their direct reports and those reports' second-tier managers. It may be the first study focusing on this practice published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal.
Some findings were surprising or counterintuitive, such as the broad implementation of and support for the practice within the sample, and participants' tendency to prefer their exclusion from SLMs that bypass them. An SLM is a direct, relationship-oriented, two-way conversation in a small forum between employees and a manager above their direct supervisor, bridging one or more lower managerial layers (whether present or not). That makes SLMs substantially different from other meetings that bring employees and higher-level managers together, such as "all hands" or "town halls." SLMs facilitate discussion of ideas and concerns; leaders may learn about frontline operational challenges and context, while employees may learn about organizational context and the reasoning behind procedures or decisions, and gain visibility.
SLMs may support innovation, earlier identification and resolution of issues, adaptability, motivation, engagement, satisfaction, performance and lower-level managers' accountability. However, they may also undermine authority, create misalignment, and breed resentment and tension. Their value may be lower in more standardized environments that are less adaptive or less focused on innovation (e.g., bank branches, flight crews).
Risks may be higher where strict hierarchy, alignment, tight synchronization and discipline through a well-defined chain of command are prioritized (e.g., the military). In these environments, SLMs may be perceived as more norm-breaking and have more severe adverse consequences. Intuition and implicit expectations from prior research led me to expect more resistance.
Instead, 24 of the 25 participants supported the concept of SLMs bypassing them. Twenty-three of the 25 referred to a specific workplace SLM implementation; 19 of the 23 viewed that implementation positively, three liked the concept but disliked their referenced implementation, and only one opposed the practice outright. SLM prevalence within the sample was also much higher than SLM prevalence reported for other contexts (not first-tier software engineering managers in U.S. tech organizations).
Extract — continue reading at the source.
