skills/team-health/SKILL.md
Helps engineering managers assess and improve team health across morale, cohesion, delivery culture, and engagement — produces Google's 5 Factors (Project Aristotle), a 4-state team health diagnosis (Falling Behind / Treading Water / Repaying Debt / Innovating), a 5-zone intensity model, the Engagement Stack, the Trust Battery, Teamicide patterns (Peopleware), a blameless postmortem format, and a library of team activities organized by driver. Use when the user says "team morale," "team is struggling," "burnout," "engagement," "attrition risk," "psychological safety," "team dynamics," "something feels off," "team culture," "team is unhappy," "retros aren't working," "team isn't working hard enough," "ideas for team activities," or "how do I run a team offsite." Do NOT use for individual performance concerns (use `managing-high-performers`), team staffing or hiring (use `team-composition`), or individual motivation interventions (use `engineer-motivation`).
npx skillsauth add manager-dot-dev/manager-skills team-healthInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Check for EM context first. If .agents/em-context.md exists, read it.
If .agents/em-context.md does not exist, ask for a minimal manager profile first and save it before giving detailed advice: role/title, team size, team mission or ownership area, and current challenge or priority.
If a specific person is central to the conversation and .agents/reports/[name].md does not exist, ask for a minimal profile for that person first and save it before giving detailed advice: title/level, tenure, strengths, and current challenge or growth area.
.agents/em-context.md or .agents/reports/[name].md automatically. Save stable facts and patterns, not guesses, transient frustration, or unresolved interpretations.Keep the first answer concise and useful. Do not dump the whole framework unless the user asks for depth.
Default to:
references/activities.mdWhen helping with team health, diagnose before prescribing activities:
If the team is in burnout or high-intensity mode, address recovery and priorities before suggesting morale activities.
Google's Project Aristotle studied hundreds of teams to find what actually makes them effective. The top 5 factors, in order of importance:
The order matters. All five are necessary, but psychological safety is foundational — without it, the others don't activate. People don't raise concerns, share ideas, or flag problems when they fear judgment.
A practical way to use this: run a short team exercise where each person scores each factor (1–5). Look at where the scores are lowest. The lowest factor by average score is your most important focus area — not the one that feels most urgent to you.
When managers are asked "who is your team?", they almost always list their direct reports. Never their peers.
But a manager's peer group is also a team — and the same five factors apply to it. Engineering managers who treat peer relationships as purely transactional (or competitive) create the conditions for silos: no knowledge sharing, slow cross-team coordination, and blame when things go wrong at the boundaries.
The same trust, conflict, accountability, and commitment that you invest in building with your reports — invest it with your peer EMs too.
From An Elegant Puzzle (Will Larson): teams exist in one of four states at any given time, each requiring a different response from the EM.
| State | What it looks like | What to do | |---|---|---| | Falling behind | Backlog grows every sprint; team feels overwhelmed; commitments slip | Add capacity. This is the only state where hiring directly helps. In the short term: reduce the scope of what you're committing to and communicate that to stakeholders honestly. | | Treading water | Team is shipping, but only product work — no tech debt addressed, no improvements | Reduce WIP. Focus the team on fewer things. Create space by finishing existing work before starting new work. | | Repaying debt | Team is actively working down tech debt; velocity feels slower | Protect the work. Shield the team from new product demands until the debt is paid. This state is temporary and necessary — don't let urgency interrupt it. | | Innovating | Low tech debt, stable delivery, team has headspace to experiment | Preserve it carefully. This state is fragile. Only add work that's compatible with the team's current way of working. The wrong new hire or the wrong project can push you back to Treading water fast. |
The most common mistake: treating all states the same. Pushing a "Falling behind" team to also repay debt doesn't work. Trying to innovate while treading water doesn't work. Diagnose the current state first, then apply the right response.
Most engineering managers underinvest in team meetings — either skipping them entirely (too busy, afraid of wasting time) or running them without an agenda. The common excuse: "I'll create one when I have something good to say." The result: 3 meetings a year.
Team meetings create shared context, shared memory, and connection that 1:1s can't replace.
Review the next project: How it fits the roadmap, why it was chosen, what you're trying to achieve. Not a substitute for a technical kickoff — this is for context and alignment.
Post-mortem of a recent incident: Go over what happened and brainstorm as a team on how to prevent the next one.
A developer shares a project they worked on: Improves their presentation skills; the rest of the team learns something new.
Interesting projects from elsewhere in the company: New PoCs with clients, technical work other teams are doing.
Business updates: You know things your team typically doesn't. Share sales updates, usage metrics, plans for the next funding round.
Bring a guest:
Fun: Lunch together, a short game. For remote teams, something like Drawize.
There's no universal answer. Weekly 30 minutes is probably too much to sustain with quality. A reasonable starting point: 30 minutes, twice a month — then adjust based on how it's going.
The most important thing: start, then don't cancel. Create the recurring meeting before you talk yourself out of it.
The difference between great and average teams often shows up in three places:
Team Focus Days are a structured way to work on all three. The concept: take the team out of the office for a full day, twice a year, with a mix of work and connection.
What you share (and don't share) with your team shapes their trust in you and in the company.
Don't be a shit umbrella. Managers who shield their teams from every difficult reality think they're protecting people. What they're actually doing is creating a team that's perpetually surprised by bad news and has no way to prepare or respond. Some information is genuinely confidential. But most "bad news" should be shared.
The disappointment frontier. Share information that your team will eventually learn anyway — about roadmap changes, reorgs, financial pressures, strategy shifts. If they find out from someone else, or after the fact, you've damaged your credibility. Better to share early, even if the news is uncertain.
Share the financial situation. Developers who understand how the business is doing make better decisions — they understand urgency, scope, and trade-offs. You don't need to show spreadsheets. But "we had a strong quarter and we have runway to invest" vs. "it's been a tough few months and we need to be efficient" changes how people think about their work.
Think of it like a ship: everyone on a ship knows if it's sinking. The crew doesn't need a board meeting to understand the situation. Give your team enough context to be crew, not passengers.
Share the roadmap draft. Before priorities are finalized, share what's being considered and why. People can handle a draft. What they can't handle is being handed a finished plan they had no visibility into.
Not every week should feel the same. Teams that run at full sprint indefinitely burn out. Teams that coast lose edge. The skill is knowing what zone you're in — and choosing it consciously.
A simple 5-zone model, borrowed from endurance training:
| Zone | Feel | When to use | |------|------|-------------| | 1 — Very light | Calm, sustainable, low pressure | Recovery after intense periods; onboarding new members | | 2 — Light | Steady output, no crunch | Default healthy pace for most of the year | | 3 — Moderate | Focused, some urgency | Normal sprint periods, regular delivery cycles | | 4 — Hard | High energy, tight deadlines | Product launches, critical milestones | | 5 — Maximum | All-in, not sustainable | True crises only — production outages, make-or-break moments |
The mistake most EMs make: defaulting to Zone 4 as the steady state. Zone 4 feels productive. It looks like commitment. But it has a ceiling — teams can't sustain it, and the recovery cost is high.
How to use this:
If someone tells you your team isn't working hard enough, don't dismiss it and don't accept it uncritically. There are three distinct root causes — and each requires a different response:
Lack of "hustle" — an external person sees no visible effort signals. People seem relaxed, unhurried, and don't look busy. This is often a perception gap, not a performance gap — especially in remote environments.
Lack of visible output — poor communication, unreasonable expectations, or poor prioritization. The team is working but progress isn't visible to stakeholders. This is a communication/transparency problem.
Lack of passion — the team seems unmotivated or detached. This is a morale and engagement problem.
In all three cases: don't dismiss the feedback. Find ways to bridge the gap between what you see and what the feedback-giver sees. Often, making the work more visible (more frequent updates, clearer progress communication) is enough.
When a developer tells you they'll continue working from home, don't say "ok" — that implies they need to explain themselves or seek approval.
Instead, say something like: "I trust you to manage your own time — no need to mention it when you continue from home."
Then model it yourself. When you leave early, don't add "I'll continue working after the kids go to sleep." Just leave. Announce it without the justification. This signals that you trust people to manage their own time without surveillance — which is what psychological safety around flexible work actually looks like.
If retros keep surfacing the same issues without resolution, try:
The deeper issue behind retro déjà vu is usually that the output doesn't lead to action. Before changing the format, check whether anything from previous retros was ever actually addressed.
Individual engagement requires four layers to be aligned — each depends on the one below:
When someone is disengaged, find out which layer broke first. Fixing company communication won't help someone who's in the wrong role. Fixing the role won't help someone who has a bad team dynamic.
Tense before standup. Exhausted after every sprint. Frustrated about decisions they had no input into. These are not personal problems — they're team health signals.
Nobody performs at their best when their body is in a stress state. Ask "How did you feel this week?" in 1:1s — not as a therapy question, but as a diagnostic one. Give space for a real answer.
If someone's nervous system is consistently in threat mode at work, that's an environment problem as much as a performance problem.
From Peopleware (DeMarco & Lister): a jelled team is one that has coalesced into a cohesive unit — members trust each other, move in sync, and collectively outperform what you'd predict from individual skill levels. Jelled teams are genuinely rare and disproportionately valuable.
What jelling requires:
Teamicide — the patterns that destroy cohesion:
| Factor | What it looks like | |---|---| | Defensive management | Micromanagement, second-guessing decisions, checking in constantly — signals you don't trust the team | | Separated workspace | Open offices that make deep work impossible; remote setups without shared async norms | | Fragmented work | Team members constantly switching between unrelated projects; no one gets to finish anything | | Quality reduction for schedule | Forcing shortcuts that engineers know are wrong — kills pride of craft | | Phony deadlines | Artificial urgency; "this is critical" for every sprint — engineers learn urgency means nothing | | Clique control | Managers who treat a subset of the team as the inner circle and the rest as implementers |
You can do many things right and still destroy a jelled team with one of these. The most common is defensive management disguised as staying involved.
From It Doesn't Have to Be Crazy at Work (Basecamp/Fried): every relationship between two people has an implicit trust battery, starting at around 50%.
The battery charges when someone does what they say they'll do — responds when they said they would, ships what they committed to, handles a situation the way they promised. It discharges when they don't.
Trust isn't primarily built by being warm, friendly, or enthusiastic. It's built by delivery. The engineer who quietly ships what they committed to, every sprint, has a fuller battery with their colleagues than the one who makes everyone feel great but misses constantly.
Practical use:
When something breaks — a production incident, a failed deployment, a major bug — the traditional response is to find the person responsible and correct them. Etsy's approach (which became the industry standard) is different: assume that people acted with the best information and tools they had at the time. The goal is not to find who caused the problem, but to understand how the system allowed it to happen.
Why blame-first postmortems backfire:
What a blameless postmortem looks like:
The EM's role: model the tone. If you're leading the postmortem and you're looking for a villain, the team will protect themselves. If you're genuinely curious about what the system allowed, they'll tell you the truth.
Blameless doesn't mean consequence-free. Repeated individual negligence or deliberate violations are different situations. But they're the exception, not the default explanation.
If the user asks where a framework came from, wants to read the original article, or wants more context on any topic in this skill — read references/sources.md. For a library of team activity ideas organized by driver (Growth / Connection / Impact), read references/activities.md.
1on1s — Primary place to detect and address individual health issuesfeedback — For addressing specific behavioral concerns on the teamengineer-motivation — Individual-level motivation and engagement interventionsroadmap-planning — Workload and capacity as inputs to team healthretaining-developers — The 5-state retention framework maps directly to team health signalstesting
Score an Engineering Manager's coverage across all 12 cells of the EM Grid based on their calendar and Slack. Use this skill whenever someone wants to understand where they're spending their management energy, find blind spots, get a monthly self-reflection on their EM focus, or hear phrases like "score my EM grid", "where am I spending time as a manager", "what are my blind spots", "analyze my calendar as EM", "which EM areas am I neglecting", "how balanced is my management focus", or "check my EM grid coverage". Always pull live calendar data — never ask the user to describe their week manually.
development
Helps engineering managers write messages, announcements, and stakeholder updates that land well — produces a 3-Step Writing Framework (Prepare / Write Simply / Run a Garbage Collector), the Async Re-Explanation Trap (calling out missed messages), and the Compression/Decompression model for diagnosing why messages are misunderstood. Use when the user says "draft a message," "write an announcement," "communicate this change," "how do I word this," "message for my team," "write an update," or "how do I communicate X." Do NOT use for verbal feedback or difficult conversations (use `feedback` or `difficult-situations`).
development
Helps engineering managers build a functional PM–EM partnership and become more product-oriented — produces a 3-pattern PM–EM dynamic model (PM-Led / Engineering-Led / Fake Balanced), a true partnership definition, the "It's Important to Me" card for navigating disagreements, tips for getting engineers closer to customers and usage data (launch vs. landing, session recordings, customer conversations), and an explicit responsibilities exercise. Use when the user says "PM relationship," "PM drives me crazy," "product manager," "roadmap disagreement," "PM overrides me," "PM–EM partnership," "I want to be more product-oriented," or "how do I get engineers closer to customers." Do NOT use for general roadmap prioritization (use `roadmap-planning`) or when urgency is being manufactured by a PM (use `managing-urgency`).
testing
Helps engineering managers work effectively with Software Architects, Staff Engineers, and Principal Engineers — covers the EM's side of the relationship (responsiveness, proactive consultation, giving credit), how to advocate for architect time, pre-consultation preparation, and the two architecture team models (Centralized vs. Decentralized). Use when the user says "architect," "staff engineer," "principal engineer," "technical design review," "working with senior technical people," "getting architecture help," or "how do I get more architect time." Do NOT use for managing staff/principal engineers who report directly to you (use `managing-high-performers` or `delegation`).