Our Integrator does nearly all of the talking during the scorecard and rock review portions of our Level 10 Meeting, turning our weekly operational pulse into a top-down presentation rather than an accountability check. How do we restore shared accountability during the reporting sections?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When an Integrator dominates the scorecard and Rock review sections of your Level 10 Meeting, they transform a dynamic accountability pulse into a passive, top-down presentation. This behavior stifles team engagement, cultivates dependence, and prevents department heads from truly owning their numbers and commitments.

To correct this, the Integrator must step back and act strictly as the facilitator of the meeting, not the presenter. During the scorecard and Rock review segments, each leadership team member must report on their own metrics and Rocks.

Restoring Shared Accountability

The process for restoring shared accountability during these reporting sections involves clear roles and disciplined execution:

• Individual Reporting: The person who owns the seat must state whether their number is on track or off track, and whether their Rock is on track or off track. This immediate, direct ownership is crucial for a healthy [weekly scorecard review](/qa/how-to-review-scorecard-under-five-minutes).
• Integrator's Role: The Integrator's primary function is to keep the clock moving, not to comment on or analyze the data. Their focus should be on facilitation and maintaining the meeting's pace.
• Handling Off-Track Metrics: If a scorecard metric is red (off track), the owner of that metric simply states "off track." The facilitator then asks if it needs to go on the Issues List. If it does, it's immediately dropped to the bottom of the list without discussion, and the meeting moves on. This prevents tangents and ensures discussions happen during [IDS (Identify, Discuss, Solve)](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids).
• Preparedness: This approach shifts the burden of accountability back to individual leaders. They must arrive at the meeting fully prepared to own their performance in front of their peers. For guidance on defining these metrics, consider how to [choose five to fifteen scorecard metrics](/qa/how-to-choose-five-fifteen-scorecard-metrics).
• Faster Meetings, More Ownership: By returning the meeting to a fast-paced, peer-to-peer reporting tool, you free up valuable time for IDS and rebuild the collective ownership necessary to run a highly disciplined organization. This disciplined approach also applies to how an Integrator manages the meeting flow, ensuring the meeting itself doesn't become a bottleneck, as discussed in whether the [Integrator should facilitate Level 10 Meetings](/qa/should-integrator-facilitate-level-10-meetings).

Related questions

• [How do we review our weekly scorecard in under five minutes?](/qa/how-to-review-scorecard-under-five-minutes)
• [How do we narrow down our massive list of metrics to just five to fifteen numbers?](/qa/how-to-choose-five-fifteen-scorecard-metrics)
• [When an issue is dropped to IDS, my leadership team immediately starts pointing fingers at other departments rather than taking ownership. How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids)
• [Our Integrator acts as the Level 10 Meeting facilitator but struggles to participate objectively because they are busy managing the timer and the agenda. Should we rotate the facilitator role or hire an outside moderator?](/qa/should-integrator-facilitate-level-10-meetings)