(Version française disponible ici.)
Like so many committee meetings that were taking place in 2020 and 2021 to establish pandemic reopening plans, one in a large community organization in Calgary was heated and contentious.
The final decision to reopen with limited restrictions was relayed in meeting minutes which were a watered down, superficial summary of the discussion. Missing in the documentation was any reflection, nuance or depth about trade-offs or potential future paths. Also missing from the discussion was an understanding of how these decisions would leave their mark on relationships. Some examples of what didn’t make the meeting minutes:
- Small business owners pleading to reopen to save livelihoods in communities already on the brink.
- Warnings that one-size-fits-all policies would tear at the fabric of democracy.
- Hospital staff fearing overrun ICUs and overflowing morgues like in New York and Italy.
- Frontline workers in grocery stores and meatpacking plants, many from racialized, low-income communities, fearing cramped, poorly ventilated workspaces.
A learning system requires well-chaired meetings that result in more than a binary ledger. It elevates nuance in the meeting and documents incomplete threads and possibilities: why reasonable people disagreed, what evidence would have changed their minds, and who bears which risks to what degree. It preserves the roads not taken – the alternatives we might choose with new data – so the next meeting starts in the grey, not black or white.
For example, meetings and minutes during the pandemic would often gloss over emerging questions – such as evolving thinking on airborne versus droplet transmission, or how minds might have been changed with additional information.
At different points in time, as additional data emerged lending meaningful new insights – whether it be the utility of wastewater testing to signal early outbreaks or the value of rapid testing to return to school and work – the Calgary committee struggled to pivot. Members became entrenched in earlier positions because nuance was not seeded in prior conversations and potential takeaways from earlier deliberations had not been retained. Participants were not primed for agile thinking.
Misunderstandings calcified. As a result, some came away feeling dismissed and unheard, which led to even deeper polarization. We struggled to find shared wisdom amidst the chaos.
The result wasn’t just policy gridlock. It was an exercise in fractured trust which endures in the way such meetings are organized and conducted to this day.
Learning to make better decisions
People dread meetings in part because they are too often poorly chaired and fail to stickhandle ambiguity. And the minutes reflect that.
By contrast, in-action reviews (IARs) transform the decision-making process through a living tool built to facilitate reflection, learning and course correction. Chairing and minute-taking are elevated to a new standard with enhanced purpose.
Adapted from high-performance teams and in U.S. military performance reviews, IARs bring greater clarity and nuance to support decision-making.
Leaders are less likely to make decisions with incomplete information on complex, fast-moving issues. During the early days of COVID-19, for instance, instant action was needed without knowing key facts around transmissibility, morbidity, rapid testing and community vulnerabilities.
Since the minutes from these deliberations excluded the path taken to arrive at decisions, including key trade-offs and how conundrums were addressed, they cannot fully inform future discussions when similar dilemmas arise.
How in-action reviews work
IARs transform meetings by giving chairs a tool for self-improvement. Rather than focusing on who said what, IARs guide the chair to make sure different voices are heard, crystallize why choices and trade-offs are made, articulate what new information might change minds or plans, explore what might be possible, and leans into what points or styles succeeded in shifting mindsets.
It can be humbling – and generative.
Governance bodies that employ IARs quickly discover gaps in perspectives, logic and data. It forces participants to name what they don’t know.
While not always easy, the benefits are indisputable.
In-action reviews in action
Unlike traditional meetings designed to hear positions and record votes, IARs rely on skilled facilitators who work to understand people and issues with nuance, and who shape the dialogue in real time. IARs give the chair a structured framework for each meeting or decision-making process, helping them clearly summarize both the discussion and the decisions. This includes:
- Naming the issue being discussed.
- Identifying voices or perspectives present in the conversation.
- Describing how the perspectives were understood by the committee or chair.
- Explaining the rationale for the decision or approach taken.
- Stating what would change minds: new data, perspectives, or experiences.
- Setting a timeline for revisiting the decision or evaluating the process.
By exposing these elements, the organization fosters accountability and encourages a deeper level of reflection, humility and curiosity for future meetings.
The focus is no longer on defending positions or a committee’s prior choices – but on solving emerging issues.
The deeper benefits of IARs
There is another benefit: institutions become more self-aware. By asking, “what would change our minds?” leaders create a “pluralism pause” — a moment to reflect on blind spots and acknowledge uncertainty.
While some find this approach unsettling at first, decoupling decision-making from the mood in the room has a powerful benefit. The whole group gains awareness of the broader context for their decisions.
Finally, IARs provide a release valve for leaders absent in traditional minute-keeping. Decision-making under pressure can feel like a trap: act too soon and risk mistakes; wait too long and risk missing the boat or potentially causing harm due to inaction.
IARs offer leaders permission to make decisions with limited information, as is often the case, while clearly stating what would prompt a re-evaluation. This not only enhances the quality of decisions but leaves clear threads for team members to pull later.
A shared record that captures the stakes, signals and relationships, and transforms conflict into context, positions into possibilities – and minutes into collective memory.
Contemporary decision-making must consider a myriad of criteria, issues and groups traditionally overlooked. In-action reviews instill accountability and a growth mindset, driving toward not only more complete decisions, but traceability for those who will be called upon to make other difficult decisions and can benefit from past deliberations.
This article is part of a series on inclusive governance. Read more here.
