Our leadership team is technically hitting their ninety percent weekly To-Do completion rate in our Level 10 Meeting™, but the actual quality of the completed tasks is subpar, forcing us to frequently reopen issues or redo the work. How do we raise the bar for what done actually means without turning the weekly To-Do review into a micromanaged auditing session?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a team hits its completion metrics with low-quality work, you have a compliance mindset rather than an ownership mindset. Leaders are checking boxes to avoid public embarrassment during the Level 10 Meeting™ review, but they are not actually solving the problems. This creates a loop of waste where issues are marked as resolved only to reappear on the Issues List two weeks later.

To fix this, you must change how To-Dos are written and agreed upon. A To-Do should never be vague. Instead of writing research software options, the To-Do must be written as email comparison matrix of top three software options to the team. This clearly defines the output.

During the weekly review, when a leader states that a To-Do is done, the facilitator must ask for proof of the result, not just a verbal confirmation. This does not mean running a full audit. It means asking a quick, clarifying question: Did that email go out, and do we have the comparison matrix ready for IDS® today? If the deliverable is not actually usable for the team, the To-Do is not done.

If a leader consistently delivers subpar work, it is a GWC™ issue that must be addressed outside the meeting. Do not use the Level 10 Meeting™ to micromanage their performance. Hold them accountable to the standard that a completed To-Do must actually move the business forward, not just satisfy a checkbox.