Executive team reviews have a reputation for taking six months and producing a deck nobody acts on. That happens when the review starts without a question.
Here is how we run one in six weeks.
Week one: agree the question
Not "review the executive team". Something like: is the current structure right for the plan we have just approved? Or: we have three retirements in two years, what do we need the team to look like after them?
The CEO, the Chair and, if there is one, the Chief People Officer agree the question and what evidence would answer it. That conversation takes two hours and saves four weeks.
Weeks two and three: gather the evidence
Three sources. First, the roles as written against the roles as done: we read the job descriptions and then interview each executive about what they actually own. The gaps and overlaps show up quickly. Second, capability: structured interviews with each executive, references from the Chair and CEO, psychometrics where the Board wants them. Third, the outside: what comparable organisations have done with the same structure question, and what the market for each role looks like.
Week four: the reward check
A team review that ignores pay produces recommendations the organisation cannot afford or cannot retain. We benchmark each executive package against relevant comparators so the structural options come with a cost.
Weeks five and six: options and the decision
We present two or three structural options, each with the people implications: who fits where, where the gaps are, what would need to be recruited or developed. The Board picks one. We write up the decision and the actions.
What makes it slip
Diaries. The review needs an hour with each executive and two sessions with the Board. If those cannot be booked in the first fortnight, the six weeks become ten. We ask for the diary slots before we start.
The other thing that makes it slip is a Chair who wants the review to reach a particular answer. We can only run this if the question is open.