Protocol
Follow up on whether the problem changed, not whether the meeting happened
The meeting is an intervention; the outcome is what happens afterward.
When it fits
- A conversation or agreement was completed and everyone assumes the conflict is therefore resolved.
When to avoid it
- Follow-up should not become surveillance or repeated pressure to declare a problem solved.
Why it matters
At the agreed review point, check the observable actions, whether the original problem recurred, whether either side still experiences the issue as unresolved, and whether the agreement needs adjustment. Escalate the route when repeated informal attempts do not change the problem.
Steps
- Were agreed actions completed?
- Did the original problem recur?
- Does either side still consider it unresolved?
- What changes or escalation are needed?
An example
After two release cycles, the team checks whether late changes are acknowledged within the agreed window rather than merely noting that a meeting occurred.
Check your result
The follow-up produces an outcome judgement and a next action, not only attendance confirmation.
Keep this limit in mind
- Follow-up should not become surveillance or repeated pressure to declare a problem solved.
Connected ideas
Use beforeEscalate the process when informal repair keeps failing
Evidence and sources
Acas recommends that agreed next steps be clear, specific and measurable and that the parties later check whether the problem is actually resolved.
A measurable action does not guarantee relationship repair or fairness.
Dealing with a problem raised by a worker · Keep a record; Following up