The Q4 2025 EM coaching cohort hit the 3-month mark on January 23. We ran an open Office Hours with three of the four leaders to share what’s been working, what hasn’t, and what they wish they’d known when they started.
Headlines#
- The senior-1:1 GROW framework took 4-6 weeks to feel natural. All three EMs reported initial discomfort with the format (“felt scripted”) that resolved by week 5-6 once they internalized the question library. Past that point, none of them want to go back to the old format.
- Performance conversations got easier, not harder. A counter-intuitive result. Two of three EMs reported that having structured 1:1s actually made hard performance conversations easier because the relationship infrastructure was already there.
- The biggest unexpected pattern: senior engineers asked for more. Two of the three said senior engineers explicitly asked for the new 1:1 format to extend to other senior peers. The format won the engineers, not just the EMs.
What we discussed#
On internalizing the GROW framework#
Jana described her week-1 attempt: “I wrote out the questions. I literally read them off my screen. The senior engineer probably noticed but didn’t say anything.” By week 4 she was paraphrasing instead of reading. By week 6 the structure was in her head and the conversation flowed naturally.
Tomáš had a different curve — he resisted the structure for the first 3 weeks and his 1:1s slipped back to status format. The coach intervened, paired him with Sara for 2 weeks, and his framework adoption stuck after that. “Watching someone else run it well was what I needed.”
Sara, who had more EM experience coming in, internalized faster but pointed out that her improvement was in stages 3-4 (Options, Will) — she’d always been decent at Listen and Diagnose, but the discipline of generating multiple options before committing was new even for her.
On peer-to-manager transitions#
Two of three EMs were promoted from within the team. We spent 15 minutes on the specific challenges:
Jana’s hardest moment was when a former peer — now her direct report — pushed back hard on a technical decision in a 1:1. “Three months ago we’d have argued as peers and one of us would have changed our mind. Now I’m worried that ‘changing my mind’ looks weak, and ‘holding the position’ looks like I’m pulling rank.”
The framework’s stage-2 (Reality) and stage-3 (Options) work fixed this in the moment. By asking “What would change your mind on this?” — she got the engineer to articulate the criteria for their own position, which made the conversation productive instead of confrontational.
On performance conversations#
The full discussion is in the transcript. The compressed version:
Tomáš had to deliver hard performance feedback to an engineer 4 weeks into the cohort. He used a structure derived from the GROW framework: surface the gap (Reality), generate options for closing it (Options), commit to a 90-day improvement plan (Will). The engineer did not love the conversation but accepted the plan; they’re now 8 weeks in and showing measurable improvement.
The coach’s observation: “The framework doesn’t make hard conversations easy. It makes them survivable. The engineer left the room with a plan, not a wound.”
On cross-functional escalation#
Sara raised a cross-functional disagreement she’s currently managing — Product wants a feature shipped in 2 weeks; her team’s estimate is 5. She’s been working through the GROW format with her own manager (Director of Engineering) on how to handle the conversation with Product.
Group input:
- Tomáš: lead with the 90-day cost of choosing 2-week vs 5-week (technical debt accrual, future feature blocked)
- Jana: separate “what’s possible in 2 weeks” from “what we can defend if it breaks”
- Coach: this is exactly where the decision-rights matrix becomes useful — if Product and Engineering disagree on scope vs. quality, who decides?
Self-assessment from the cohort#
Each EM rated themselves at coach prompt:
- What’s working: All three named “1:1 quality” as the biggest improvement. Two named “delegating effectively” as a close second.
- What’s still hard: Async-async-async cross-team collaboration; managing former peers; staying in the strategic mode and not regressing to writing code.
- What they’d tell their pre-cohort self: “It’s slower than I expected. Stick with it.” (paraphrased, all three said variants of this)
Where the cohort goes from here#
3 more months remaining. Focus areas based on January retrospective:
- Each EM picks one specific cross-functional relationship to coach through with the coach’s support
- Pod sessions shift to peer-coaching (each EM presents a real challenge, others coach)
- Final capstone: each EM produces a written framework for their successor
Apply for the next cohort#
Q3 2026 cohort opens applications in May. Apply for AI & Leadership Training. Pro bono seats (2/year) for Polish non-profit and education-sector leaders: Pro Bono dla Polskiego Biznesu.