Our leadership team members are technically hitting our ninety percent to-do completion rate, but we are finding that the completed tasks are often rushed, low-quality, or only half-done, which means the underlying issues keep popping back up on our list a few weeks later. How do we ensure that done actually means fully resolved?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

A 90% to-do completion rate is meaningless if the quality of the completed tasks is poor. When leaders rush through to-dos just to check them off the list before the meeting, they are prioritizing compliance over actual execution. This approach results in half-solved problems that inevitably return to the Issues List, creating a frustrating cycle of wasted time and effort.

Defining and Executing To-Dos

To ensure that "done" truly means fully resolved, you must change how your team defines and closes to-dos. Every to-do must be written with a clear, binary definition of success.

Consider the difference:

• Vague Task: "Look into customer billing issues." This leaves too much room for interpretation and partial completion.
• Clear Task: "Deliver a written root-cause analysis and three recommended solutions to the Integrator by Thursday." This clear definition leaves no room for interpretation or half-measures, ensuring a complete output. A well-defined to-do helps the team focus on the actual resolution, not just the activity.

Reviewing and Accountability

When reviewing the to-do list during your weekly meeting:

• The owner of the task must state whether it is done or not done. There is no "almost done" or "mostly done."
• If a task is marked as done, but the outcome did not actually solve the problem or meet the specific definition of success, the team must immediately put it back on the Issues List.
• The facilitator should then lead a brief IDS® (Identify, Discuss, Solve) session to address why the task was incomplete. This helps uncover systemic issues or lack of clarity. If your team consistently struggles with identifying the root cause of issues, you might want to review [How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids).

Addressing Performance Issues

Consistently delivering low-quality work on to-dos is a performance issue that must be addressed offline. This indicates a potential challenge with whether a leader GWC™ (Gets it, Wants it, has the Capacity to do it) for their seat on the [Accountability Chart](/qa/how-can-ai-optimize-the-accountability-chart-for-eos-organizations-undergoing-exit-planning).

A leader who repeatedly fails to properly complete to-dos may not be demonstrating the capacity required for their role. This requires a conversation outside the Level 10 Meeting to understand the root cause, which could range from lack of skill or resources to a misunderstanding of expectations. It's crucial to address these issues directly to maintain the team's effectiveness and the integrity of your operational rhythm. For more on ensuring your team is the right fit, consider [I am the owner currently sitting in four seats on our Accountability Chart, and since I cannot afford external hires, I want to promote from within. However, none of my current employees fully pass the GWC filter for these leadership seats today. How do I structure a developmental runway on our chart without prematurely giving them seats they are not ready to own?](/qa/internal-promotion-runway-accountability-chart).

Related questions

• [How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids)
• [I am the owner currently sitting in four seats on our Accountability Chart, and since I cannot afford external hires, I want to promote from within. However, none of my current employees fully pass the GWC filter for these leadership seats today. How do I structure a developmental runway on our chart without prematurely giving them seats they are not ready to own?](/qa/internal-promotion-runway-accountability-chart)
• [How can we analyze our team conative profiles or Kolbe Indexes using AI to build a more effective project team for a major operational shift?](/qa/analyze-kolbe-indexes-with-ai-project-teams)
• [How does having our processes documented and a clear V/TO make us more attractive to a private equity buyer?](/qa/why-buyers-pay-more-for-eos-run-businesses)
• [How do we ensure they do not walk away or burn out?](/qa/preventing-executive-burnout-post-transaction-kolbe)