The Review Meeting Is Broken

You can usually tell quite quickly when a review meeting isn't working.

The pack is still being updated as people arrive. Someone joins late and asks a question covered in the pre-read. Another person is double-booked and leaves halfway through. A decision comes up, but the person who needs to make it isn't there. Too much time is spent explaining numbers already within tolerance, while the issues that need attention are squeezed into the final few minutes.

Everyone has technically attended the meeting. Whether the business has moved forward is another matter.

The best reviews feel different. There is a clear purpose, people know what is expected of them, the information is available early enough to digest, and the discussion concentrates on what actually needs attention.

That doesn't happen simply because somebody chairs the meeting well. It comes from the discipline around it.

Start with why the meeting exists

Every review should have a clear purpose.

What are we here to achieve? Which decisions belong in this forum? What should have been resolved before it gets here? What is expected from each person attending?

Without that clarity, the agenda grows. More measures are added, more slides appear, and more people are invited. The meeting gradually shifts from managing the business to reporting what's happened.

That distinction matters in any structured review. A commercial review shouldn't simply present the latest sales numbers. A project review shouldn't become a walk-through of every task. A performance review shouldn't repeat discussions that should already have happened elsewhere.

Whatever the forum, it needs a defined role and should move the business forward.

The meeting starts before the meeting

I'm a strong believer in pre-reads, but only when everyone understands how they're meant to be used. Sending out a large pack and expecting every page to be studied in equal detail isn't particularly useful.

One simple approach I've used is to separate the content into I and A.

Scan the I's. Prepare for the A's. Discuss the A's.

If someone wants more context behind an A, the supporting I's are there to provide it. The point isn't simply to make the pack easier to navigate. It's to change how the meeting uses its time.

The same discipline applies to the person preparing the material. Their job isn't just to add the slides. It's to make clear what's there for information, what genuinely requires attention, and importantly, where something is required from those attending.

If everything is an A, nothing is an A.

Preparation is part of the meeting

Once the I's and A's are clear, there is an expectation on both sides.

If you own part of the pack, get your content in by the agreed cut-off. Leave enough time for people to scan the information and prepare for the areas requiring their attention.

If you're attending, do the same in return. Scan the I's, understand the wider picture and come prepared on the A's relevant to you.

A significant issue shouldn't appear from left field if it could reasonably have been flagged beforehand. Equally, someone shouldn't be expected to make an important decision after seeing the supporting information for the first time only minutes earlier.

By the time people enter the room, there should already be a shared understanding of where the conversation needs to go.

Respect people's time

If a group of people have made time for a review, everyone has some responsibility for making that time worthwhile. Submit your input on time. Do the pre-read. Arrive on time. Stay for the discussion where you're required. Avoid unnecessary double-booking. And, when you're there, be present.

There will always be occasions when somebody has to take an urgent call or leave early. That's real life. The issue is when partial attendance, distraction or lack of preparation becomes the norm.

If you can't attend, send your apologies in advance and arrange an appropriate substitute. That person should understand your area, be able to contribute to the discussion, and have the authority to make decisions on your behalf. Sending someone simply to occupy the seat doesn't solve the problem.

Being present means listening, contributing, challenging respectfully and, where the authority sits with you, being prepared to make a decision.

The tone is usually set from the top. If the sponsor doesn't prioritise the review, or sends somebody without the necessary knowledge or authority, it's difficult to expect everybody else to treat the process differently.

Focus on the exceptions

I/A is really exception management in practical form.

If performance is within tolerance, the situation is understood and no intervention is required, it probably doesn't need ten minutes of meeting time simply because there's a slide in the pack. That's what the I's are there for. Scan them, ask a question if something warrants it and otherwise move on.

That doesn't mean success shouldn't be recognised. It should. But the purpose of a performance review is to manage performance against the plan, targets and ultimately the strategy.

Meeting time should therefore gravitate towards the A's and the exceptions behind them: what's changed, why it matters, the risks and opportunities, what can be done and what decision is required.

That's far more useful than working through a scorecard from top to bottom.

Make the decision at the right level

Not every issue needs escalating. Decisions should be made at the lowest appropriate level by people with the authority and information to make them.

Escalation is necessary when a decision crosses functions, involves a material trade-off, exceeds the authority of the current forum, or has wider implications. But escalation shouldn't simply mean passing a problem upwards.

By then, the conversation should have moved on.

• This is the issue.
• This is the impact.
• These are the options we have considered.
• This is our recommendation.
• This is the decision we need.

That is very different from putting a problem on the table and expecting the next level of the organisation to work it out from scratch.

Make sure the decision-maker is actually there

We often talk about having the right people in the room. I'd be more specific: you need the right decision-making authority represented in the meeting.

If something is expected to require a decision, it should be clear who owns it and whether they, or an authorised substitute, will have the information and authority to make it. The senior person accountable for the forum should be able to sponsor it and make, or enable, the decisions that belong there.

When this doesn't happen, organisations often conclude that roles and responsibilities aren't clear. Sometimes they aren't. But that can also be a convenient explanation for something harder to fix.

Perhaps everyone knows perfectly well who is responsible. The problem may be that someone hasn't prepared, a decision has been avoided, an action wasn't completed or agreed ways of working aren't being followed.

Another RACI chart won't necessarily solve that. Accountability might.

An action isn't a substitute for a decision

It is easy to end a difficult discussion by creating another action: come back next month, Finance to investigate, Supply Chain to review.

Sometimes more information is genuinely needed. But an action shouldn't become a way of postponing a decision that could reasonably be made now.

Where an action is necessary, make it clear who owns it, what needs to be done, when it will be completed and what happens next. As a general discipline, I also don't like allocating actions to someone who isn't in the meeting unless it has already been agreed with them.

Then follow it through. Doing what you said you would is one of the quickest ways a review process either builds or loses credibility.

Critique the process, not just the performance

One discipline I particularly value is the process critique.

At the end of each review, don't just ask what the business needs to do next. Ask how well the review itself worked against the principles agreed for the process. Depending on the purpose of the review, the critique might include:

• Was the agenda clear and the content available when it was supposed to be?
• Did the pre-read distinguish what was there to inform from what required attention or action, and did people prepare accordingly?
• Did the meeting start and finish on time, with the right people, or suitably authorised substitutes, present for the discussions where they were needed?
• Did we work as one team, look far enough forward and agree the key assumptions?
• Were risks and opportunities clear, with actions to exploit or defend them?
• Did we make the decisions the meeting was there to make?

The exact questions will vary by organisation and meeting. A review looking 18 to 24 months ahead or into the next financial year will have different expectations from a short-term operational meeting.

What matters is asking the questions and doing something with the answers.

A process critique isn't a scorecard exercise designed to give the meeting a green tick. It is a way of holding yourselves to the standards you've agreed and identifying where the process needs to improve.

The sponsor sets the standard

Every important review needs appropriate senior sponsorship. The sponsor doesn't just chair the meeting. They set the expectation for preparation, participation, challenge, decision-making and accountability.

If content is repeatedly late, challenge it. If important people cannot attend, expect advance apologies and an appropriate substitute with the knowledge and authority to contribute. If people haven't done the pre-read, don't reward that by presenting it back to them. If decisions belonging in the forum are continually deferred, ask why.

The same standard has to apply to the sponsor. You can't build discipline around a process if the people leading it don't demonstrate that discipline themselves.

Keep asking whether the meeting is earning its place

Recurring meetings can become part of the organisational furniture. They're in the calendar, so they happen. That isn't enough.

Ask whether the purpose is still clear, the pack helps people distinguish information from issues requiring attention, the right people are involved, decisions are made at the right level and actions are followed through.

Use the process critique to keep testing those questions rather than waiting until frustration builds. The answer might be to change the agenda, shorten the pack, alter the attendees or tighten the decision rights. Sometimes the meeting itself may no longer be necessary.

The objective isn't to protect the meeting. It's to make the process work.

It isn't really about meetings

These disciplines are often most visible in formal planning and governance processes, where several connected reviews each have a purpose, a horizon, a sponsor and decisions to be made.

But they are not unique to any one methodology. They apply equally to performance reviews, project governance, commercial meetings, operational reviews, leadership teams and steering groups.

You can have good data, a well-designed dashboard, a clear agenda and the right governance on paper, and still have an ineffective review. Ultimately, people have to make it work.

They have to prepare. Show up. Participate. Challenge. Decide. Act. Follow through. And be willing to hold themselves and others to the standards they've agreed.

The real test isn't whether the meeting took place or the agenda was completed. It's whether people came prepared, focused on what mattered, made the decisions they were there to make and followed through afterwards. It's also whether the team is prepared to critique the process when that isn't happening.

That's when a review stops being a calendar commitment and becomes part of how the business actually manages performance.