Sit in on enough period reviews, and you can guess the shape of the conversation before anyone’s said a word. Someone opens with, “So, what happened last month?” The screen fills with numbers, there’s a nod here, a flash of frustration there, maybe a reassuring word to close it off. Then, a month on, you’re back in the same room having almost the same conversation.
That opening question isn’t the problem. As a multi-unit manager, it’s fair to expect your site managers to know their numbers cold and explain what drove them. That’s basic accountability, and it matters.
Where these reviews fall down isn’t in explaining performance; most are genuinely good at that, it’s in actually changing it. The real issue isn’t the question at all. It’s what happens next, or rather what doesn’t, because in too many businesses, nobody starts thinking until everyone’s already sat down.
The laptop opens, and the dashboard comes up on the screen, and before long, the numbers are being reviewed there and then, with people trying to explain variances in real time as they scroll. Someone offers a reason for the labour overspend, someone else recalls a tough weekend, and gradually the conversation fills up with explanations, partial memories and a fair amount of hindsight. There are nods around the table, perhaps a little frustration, perhaps a little reassurance, and before you know it, the hour has disappeared into the detail. Then, almost inevitably, you find yourself having a remarkably similar conversation in the next period review, covering much of the same ground and wondering why the performance needle has barely moved.
This is the trap of the reactive, incident-led review, and it is one of the most common reasons that improvement quietly stalls in multi-site operations.
Driving by staring in the rear-view mirror
I often describe it like driving a car. The rear-view mirror is essential. You need to know what is happening behind you. You need context. You need awareness. But you would never attempt to reach your destination by staring into the mirror.
You glance back to inform your judgement, yet your focus remains on the road ahead.
Many period reviews unintentionally reverse that balance. They become absorbed in what happened: the bad week, the spike in labour, the complaint that escalated, the one site that struggled. The conversation circles around events, and by the time everything has been unpacked, there is very little energy left to consider what needs to change next time.
Outstanding multi-unit managers use the past differently. They review it thoroughly, but they review it with purpose. They expect the analysis to have been done before the meeting, not during it. Their GMs arrive having studied the data, prepared commentary and thought carefully about what the numbers might reveal. The review itself then becomes a conversation about understanding and direction, not a live attempt to reconstruct history.
Reactive reviews versus disciplined period reviews
A reactive review is usually prompted by something that went wrong. Sales dipped. Labour overspent. A guest complaint gained traction. The discussion then focuses on explaining that specific event, sometimes at length, without ever stepping back to ask whether it forms part of a broader pattern.
Incidents matter, of course they do. But what really moves performance is not the incident itself. It is the insight that sits beneath it.
A disciplined period review has a very different rhythm. It is structured and cumulative, and it looks across time rather than at a single data point. It connects operational outcomes to behaviours, and behaviours to choices. It asks not only what happened, but what that tells us about how the site is being led and where the real levers for improvement sit.
The shift is subtle but significant. The conversation moves from “What happened last week?” to “What are we consistently seeing, and what are we learning from it?”
The Three ‘I’s: from data to insight
One of the most useful ways to help a GM prepare properly for a review is through the Three ‘I’s: Incident, Impact and Insight. I see this less as a meeting structure and more as a thinking discipline.
Incident is the headline: sales were down 6 per cent versus last year. Labour ran over budget. Guest feedback dipped in the evenings. These facts matter, but on their own, they are simply starting points.
Impact is where the analysis deepens: that 6 per cent decline might be concentrated in lunchtime covers rather than evenings. The labour overspend may have occurred on a handful of specific days rather than across the entire period. The evening dip might correlate with a recent supervision change or staffing gap. When you look beneath the surface, the numbers begin to tell a more nuanced story.
Insight is where the real value lies: what does this pattern tell us about how the business is operating? Which behaviours are driving these results? Where are the vulnerabilities, and where are the strengths that could be built on? What does the GM now see more clearly than they did before?
A great period review keeps pushing until those questions are answered with clarity. What is really driving this? What does it mean commercially and operationally? What conversation or action does it now demand?
But insight alone does not move performance. Indeed, there is a strong case for adding a fourth I: Implement.
Unless the learning translates into focused action, the review remains an interesting discussion rather than a catalyst for change. This is where the 90-day Big Rock action plan becomes so important. The Three ‘I’s provide understanding. The Big Rocks provide direction.
Instead of leaving the meeting with a long list of good intentions, disciplined multi-unit managers narrow the focus to a small number of priorities that will genuinely shift performance over the next quarter, define specific lead measures, and build those commitments into their ongoing rhythm of site visits, one-to-ones and follow-up calls.
From analysis to action: a practical example
A recent example illustrates this well.
During a period review, a GM had identified that average spend and items per transaction were both below where they should have been. When the data was examined over several weeks, it became clear that footfall was relatively stable, yet customers were not adding to their purchases. At the same time, mystery customer feedback highlighted that suggestive selling was inconsistent. Anecdotally, the GM already knew this. It depended heavily on who was on duty. Some team members made confident, authentic recommendations. Others defaulted to a routine, “anything else?”, delivered almost as an afterthought, and sometimes there was no suggestion at all.
The Incident was straightforward: the average spend was underperforming.
The Impact became clearer when sales data and mystery shop reports were viewed together.
The Insight was that the issue was not product quality or pricing. It was an inconsistent upselling behaviour.
Once that was recognised, the conversation moved naturally towards implementation.
Rather than issuing a broad instruction to improve upselling, the GM and multi-site manager chose to focus on a small number of core products where there was a genuine story to tell. During the breakfast run, they put renewed emphasis on freshly cooked sausage sandwiches made with award-winning Lincolnshire sausages, alongside warm pastries such as croissants and pain au chocolat to accompany the morning coffee. At lunchtime, attention shifted to freshly made soups served with sourdough bread, toasted or not, highlighting craftsmanship and quality rather than price.
There were no discounts and no price-led incentives. The intention was to improve the guest experience by offering thoughtful, confident recommendations and introducing customers to something new.
Importantly, the plan was specific. Previous sales data for those products was used as a baseline. Weekly targets were set, which were then broken down into shift-level goals so supervisors and team leaders could provide clear direction. It became a 30-day focused push centred on behaviour and consistency.
The result was an increase of more than 20 per cent in average spend over the month. Mystery diner scores improved as well, not only because upselling was happening more frequently, but because it felt genuine and personal rather than transactional.
That shift did not occur because someone asked why sales were down in a meeting. It occurred because the review process moved from incident to insight, and from insight to disciplined implementation.
This is an excerpt from a LinkedIn article by Lee Sheldon. If you would like to read the full article and discover the real role of the multi-unit manager, plus some further resources, you can read it here: Why most reviews look backwards, but never move performance forward
