We talk a lot about writing better briefs.
But not enough about how they actually get approved.
We recently asked our network how briefs really get signed off in their teams.
70% said senior sign-off.
30% said gut feel.
Not a single person chose a structured review.
The sample was small. Only ten votes.
But the direction was hard to ignore.
No one picked the approval version that actually tests whether the brief is sound.
In most organisations, meaningful approval rarely happens.
They just pass.
Approval sounds like a clear process, but it usually isn’t.
In theory, there is a process. A review. A sign-off. A moment when everyone agrees the brief is ready.
In reality, it usually looks like:
- A senior person glances at it
- A few comments get added
- Someone says “looks fine”
- The work starts
There is no real challenge, validation, or shared understanding of what “good” means.
Most approvals rely on confidence rather than clear understanding.
Most briefs get approved in one of four ways:
- Gut feel — “This looks about right”
- Hierarchy — “If they’re happy, we’re good”
- Momentum — “We need to get moving”
- Silence — no one pushes back
None of these guarantee the brief is actually strong. They are driven by speed, pressure, or assumption.
The risk isn’t bad work. It’s misaligned work.
Teams don’t fail because they lack capability.
They fail because they deliver against different interpretations.
This leads to:
- Work solving the wrong problem
- Outputs that don’t match expectations
- Feedback that redirects rather than refines
- Endless revisions
This all traces back to one point: the brief was never properly approved.
Approval should be a decision, not just a moment.
A real approval process answers one question:
- Is this brief clear enough to be interpreted the same way by everyone?
Most processes don’t answer this.
They mark a moment, not a standard.
What a proper review actually looks like
Approval should test the quality of the brief, not just acknowledge it.
That means checking:
- Is the objective clear and outcome-led?
- Is the audience specific and understood?
- Is success measurable?
- Are constraints defined?
- Is anything open to interpretation that shouldn’t be?
If these are not clearly answered, the brief should not be approved.
The gap most teams don’t realise they have.
Most organisations believe they have a review process.
What they actually have is:
- A moment where no one objects
“No objections” is not alignment.
This is where things start to break.
By the time issues appear:
- Work is already underway
- Time has been spent
- Stakeholders are invested
So instead of fixing the brief, teams try to fix the output.
That is always slower and more expensive.
Final thought
Approval should actively challenge the brief.
If it doesn’t protect the work that follows, it isn’t real approval.