How to Run a Review Point That Improves Delegated Work

What a review point is for

A review point exists to do two things: check whether delegated work is meeting the agreed standard, and decide together what should change before the next cycle. It is not, despite how it can feel to both parties, primarily a test with a pass or fail mark — treating it that way turns every review into something to be dreaded rather than something genuinely useful for improving the work.

The scheduling matters as much as the content. A review point that was agreed in advance, at handover, feels fundamentally different from a check-in that appears out of nowhere because the founder felt uneasy. The first is a normal part of how the work happens; the second reads as surveillance, even when the founder's underlying concern is entirely reasonable. Protecting the agreed cadence, and resisting the urge to review outside it, is one of the most effective ways to make delegation feel less anxious for everyone involved.

Structuring the conversation

A simple, repeatable three-part structure works for most review points: what went well and should continue unchanged, what needs adjusting and why, and what the plan is for the period until the next review. Sticking to this structure, rather than improvising each time, makes reviews feel predictable and fair rather than an opportunity for the founder's mood that day to shape the outcome.

Start by asking the person how they think it went, before giving your own view. This does two useful things at once: it surfaces their own judgement, which is exactly the thing you're trying to develop through delegation, and it tells you a great deal about where their understanding of the standard genuinely sits — sometimes closer to yours than expected, sometimes revealing a gap you hadn't noticed in the original brief.

1. Ask their own assessment of how it went, before you give yours
2. Name specifically what met the standard, using the outcome definition from the brief
3. Name specifically what needs to change, and what 'better' would look like next time
4. Agree whether authority moves up, stays the same, or narrows
5. Set the exact date and format of the next review point before ending the conversation

Giving feedback that's specific, not general

General feedback — 'good job' or 'this needs to be better' — feels friendly or critical in the moment but gives the person nothing concrete to act on. Specific feedback names the actual thing: 'the reply you sent to the Tuesday complaint stayed calm and offered a fair resolution — that's exactly the tone we want' or 'the reply to Wednesday's email read as a bit abrupt for a first-time customer; for someone new, add a line acknowledging the inconvenience before the fix'. The second version is longer to say but far more useful to hear.

It helps to refer back to the outcome definition from the original brief when giving feedback, rather than introducing a new standard on the spot. If the brief said replies should be 'in our tone of voice', point to the specific line that met or missed that standard, rather than a more general impression that the person can't easily connect to anything they can change.

Deciding what happens to authority

Every review point should end with an explicit decision about authority: does it widen, because the person has consistently met the standard; does it stay the same, because there's not yet enough evidence either way; or does it need to narrow, because a recent decision suggested the current level was set too wide. Leaving this unspoken means the person has no way of knowing whether they're building trust or standing still, which tends to produce either quiet frustration or overcaution.

Say the decision out loud, with the reasoning attached: 'based on the last three weeks, you can now approve refunds up to £75 without checking, up from £30' gives a clear, motivating signal. A narrowing decision needs equal clarity and should be paired with a specific plan for rebuilding the wider authority, not left as an open-ended demotion with no path back.

What to do between review points

The discipline that makes review points work is resisting the urge to intervene between them on anything that doesn't breach a stated constraint. If you notice something you'd have done differently, keep a short private note and raise it at the review point rather than stepping in the moment you spot it. This protects the value of the scheduled review and avoids teaching the person that the agreed cadence doesn't actually mean anything.

The exception is a genuine breach of a hard constraint — money, safety, a legal requirement, a promise made to a client that shouldn't have been made. Step in immediately for those, and say clearly why this one is different from the smaller things you're deliberately saving for the review point. Making that distinction explicit builds trust rather than undermining it, because the person can see the line is consistent rather than arbitrary.

Keep review notes brief but written down. A short record of what was agreed at each review makes the next one faster and gives you a paper trail if a performance issue ever needs to be addressed formally.

Adjusting review frequency over time

Review points should get less frequent as trust builds, not stay fixed forever at the pace set when the task was new. A weekly review in the first month of a new handover might reasonably move to fortnightly, then monthly, as the person demonstrates consistent results against the agreed outcome. State this shift explicitly at a review, rather than letting reviews simply lapse from neglect, which reads very differently to the person on the receiving end.

Equally, if something changes — a new, higher-stakes version of the task, a period of underperformance, a change in the person's role — it's reasonable to temporarily increase review frequency again. Explain why, so it doesn't feel like an unexplained step backwards after progress had been made.