Skip-level meetings may win bypassed managers' support, but how they are done matters

October 26, 2026 dialog Skip-level meetings may win bypassed managers' support, but how they are done matters Lisa Lock Scientific Editor Robert Egan Senior Editor 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. First, what are SLMs (and what are they not)? 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' potential benefits, risks and workplace fit in a nutshell 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. Surprising support and prevalence, but that may not be true across the board 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). Participants saw potential advantages for employees: greater visibility to senior leadership, a chance to raise concerns, stronger relationships, and a better understanding of organizational goals and constraints. Some also saw advantages for themselves, including feedback on their own leadership, potential growth opportunities, and learning about issues (through their manager) their reports might not share with them (participants). No less surprising was participants' preference to be excluded from one-on-one SLMs, with some citing benefits such as supporting their reports' voice, "time to shine," and relationship building. Why might SLMs and exclusion feel less threatening than expected? Rooted norms may offer some explanation: The tech sector's tendency toward flatter structures, lower power distances, adaptability, dynamism and open communication; cultural backgrounds, with the U.S. positioned as a relatively egalitarian culture with low self-protectiveness and uncertainty avoidance; and generational preferences, with younger individuals tending to value participative decision-making and open communication. Other factors, such as perceived financial or job security, may also foster openness to the practice. These are general characteristics and should not be considered predictive or explanatory of individuals' behaviors, perceptions or preferences. Not all bypassing is the same Regular, management-initiated SLMs may normalize bypassing in the organizational culture and signal that skip-level voice is acceptable, welcomed and solicited. They therefore differ substantially in context from ad hoc, abnormal, "out of the blue," or employee-initiated bypassing on a specific issue. Such bypassing may be perceived as norm-breaking and tends to be exercised more in certain types of circumstances (e.g., dissent), which may also shape perceptions of it. Different formats have different advantages Team or multiteam SLMs, or those with direct managers present, may offer broader brainstorming, context from multiple angles, and a team or cross-team focus, while one-on-one SLMs or those that exclude direct managers may better foster candid employee voice. One-on-ones may also offer a more individually tailored focus. What happens outside SLMs is important Intriguing associations emerged between different implementation approaches and participants' types of misalignment concerns and sentiments: First, informal skip-level interactions were not, on their own, associated with misalignment concerns or negative sentiment toward SLMs. The infographic above describes reported SLM approaches and the prevalence of two types of misalignment concerns and negative sentiment toward the referenced SLM implementation for each approach: Why might the forum and follow-ups make a difference? One possible explanation is that one-on-ones fostered candid voices, reducing the perceived need to seek alternative skip-level channels (e.g., informal skip-level interactions) and, accordingly, reducing misalignment concerns related to informal skip-level interactions. Additionally, prompt cross-manager follow-ups may have fostered bypassed managers' alignment or perceived alignment, reducing SLM-related misalignment concerns otherwise associated with that format without prompt follow-ups. The rightmost approach was also associated with the fewest (none) implementation-specific negative sentiment cases. Leaders' behavior matters All four participants with negative sentiments toward referenced SLM implementations described troubling behavior by their managers or reports, such as dismissed feedback, poor follow-through or reluctance to speak openly. Among the 19 with positive sentiment toward implementation, 16 expressed little concern about stakeholder behavior. SLMs may backfire if leaders appear unwilling to listen or act appropriately. However, the exploratory study did not test causality, and its small, purposively selected sample does not allow statistical generalization or transferability. Instead, it offers directional clues on the little-studied topic and warrants further research to advance theory and support more evidence-informed awareness and implementation, or, when justified, deliberate avoidance. This story is part of Science X Dialog, where researchers can report findings from their published research articles. Visit this page for information about Science X Dialog and how to participate. More information Samuel Blacher, "Skip-Level Meetings: Benefits, Risks, and Design Considerations Informed by Bypassed Managers' Experiences," IEEE Engineering Management Review (2026). DOI: 10.1109/EMR.2026.3740096 Samuel Blacher holds a Ph.D. in Leadership and an M.Sc. in Engineering and Technology Management. He has over two decades of technology industry experience across two continents, with managerial and engineering positions at Fortune 100 companies and startups (e.g., formerly Director of Test Engineering at McDonald’s, Vice President of Quality Assurance at Mimic Networks, and Senior Quality Engineering Manager at Apple). He currently consults at Management at Work, his technology leadership and organizational culture consultancy.