Our leadership team consistently clocks in around 60 to 70 percent on our weekly To-Do completion rate, and nobody seems bothered by it because everyone claims they are working at maximum capacity. How do we break this pattern and hold leaders accountable to the ninety percent standard?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a team treats a 60 percent completion rate as normal, you do not have a workload problem. You have an accountability breakdown. In the EOS framework, a To-Do is a non-negotiable seven-day commitment agreed to during IDS. If your team treats missed items as casual carryovers, your Level 10 Meeting has lost its teeth.

First, change the review mechanics during the meeting. The Integrator must read each task aloud and ask for a binary answer: done or not done. No context, no excuses, no stories about busy weeks. If it is not done, it stays on the list for one more week or moves back to the Issues List if it hit a blocker. If an item is not completed after two consecutive weeks, stop the meeting and push it into IDS as a performance or capacity issue.

Second, audit the commitments being made. Teams with low completion rates almost always commit to tasks that are too big or agree to tasks just to end the debate. A true To-Do is a single action that takes less than seven days to finish. If someone says yes to five To-Dos while running an overloaded department, the Integrator must step in and challenge whether those commitments are realistic.

Third, confront the behavior directly. Running at maximum capacity is expected on an entrepreneurial leadership team. Hitting ninety percent is about discipline, prioritization, and honoring your word to your peers. If an individual seat consistently fails to deliver, that is a GWC issue on their Accountability Chart seat. Clear expectations produce execution. Accepting 60 percent sends a clear message across the company that commitments are optional.