Balance employee-owned topics, support, feedback, development, and follow-up without scripting judgment
5 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
1
Add your context
Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.
2
Your prompt
Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt
Prepare a structured one-on-one discussion agenda.
Relationship, duration, cadence, and agenda ownership:
[context]
Current follow-ups, wins, blockers, workload, feedback, growth, and sensitive topics:
[topics]
Confidentiality boundaries, non-goals, desired outcomes, and separate processes:
[boundaries]
Create a flexible time box that gives the employee's topics priority while retaining essential follow-up. For each section provide purpose, neutral open questions, evidence or preparation needed, and an observable output. Distinguish coaching questions from performance expectations and decisions. Do not infer emotions, diagnose motivation, pre-write the employee's answers, promise confidentiality beyond the stated boundary, or turn a one-on-one into a surprise formal process. Include optional language for raising sensitive topics, items to move elsewhere, and a private follow-up record containing only necessary commitments.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.
From input to outcome
A worked example
See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result
Actual input
Relationship and cadence
Weekly 30-minute one-on-one between manager Dana and analyst Rui. Rui owns the first agenda items; both add topics to a shared list. This is not a formal performance review.
Current topics and evidence
Follow up on access to the forecasting dataset; recognize Rui's clear Q2 presentation; workload across three reports; Rui previously asked about leading a client review; give evidence-based feedback that two recent analyses lacked source notes. No assumption about why. Dataset access request is ten days old.
Boundaries and desired outcomes
Personal disclosures stay private unless safety, legal, or HR duties require action. Need an owner/date for access escalation and an improvement plan for source notes. Promotion decisions and health matters are out of scope and use separate processes.
Example output
0–3 check-in and Rui's priority: “What would make this conversation most useful today?” Output: agreed order. 3–10 Rui-owned topics; ask what needs discussion versus a quick update. 10–15 follow-up and support: “What is blocked by the dataset delay?” Dana confirms an escalation owner and date; do not ask Rui to chase an access process Dana owns. 15–20 workload: review the three reports, deadlines, and trade-offs; output: explicit reprioritization or no change.
20–25 feedback: acknowledge the clear Q2 presentation with its specific impact. Then: “In the last two analyses, I could not trace several claims because source notes were absent. The expectation is that material claims include source notes. What would help make that consistent?” Output: agreed check and review date. 25–28 development: ask what Rui wants to learn from leading a client review; decide a next opportunity or state that none is confirmed. 28–30 read back commitments.
Sensitive-topic opener: “There is a work-related topic I’d like to discuss; is now workable?” Move promotion decisions or health details to the proper process. Private record: action, owner, date, and agreed support only—not speculative motives or personal detail.
Why this works
1
Employee-owned opening space surfaces priorities that a manager-designed status checklist can miss.
2
Separating coaching from expectations avoids disguising evaluation as an open question.
Check the result
Does the agenda reserve meaningful time for the employee's own topics?
Are feedback, expectations, and formal-process topics labeled honestly?
Does the follow-up record avoid unnecessary sensitive detail?
ChatGPT