Whether managers should attend reviews depends on the people involved

Outline (at a glance)

• Opening question and why it matters for requirements work

• The core idea: attendance is context-driven, not a rule

• When managers attending can help

• When their presence can hinder

• A practical framework to decide: factors, roles, and guardrails

• Real-world analogies to illuminate the balance

• Quick takeaways and a gentle closer

Should managers attend reviews? Let’s break it down in plain terms and tie it back to how many teams actually operate in real-world settings. In the field of requirements engineering—think IREB Foundation Level concepts like reviews, stakeholders, and clear communication—the way a review is conducted can shape outcomes powerful enough to influence a project’s fate. So yes, the answer “it depends on the people involved” isn’t fluffy. It’s the honest truth.

Why this question matters

Reviews are more than a checkbox. They’re a moment where ideas, constraints, and expectations collide. The goal isn’t to find fault or score points; it’s to surface issues early, align on needs, and surface decisions that keep the team moving with confidence. Managers, by virtue of their position, can be a catalyst or a bottleneck. Their attendance can provide resources, legitimacy, and direction—or it can stifle candor and slow down candid dialogue. The key is to tailor attendance to the people in the room and the purpose of the review.

When attendance can be a real asset

• Alignment and prioritization. If a review touches strategic trade-offs—costs, timelines, regulatory constraints, or the scope of a release—having a manager can help ensure the decisions align with broader goals. Their questions can surface hidden dependencies early, which is valuable in a requirements setting where stakeholders’ needs collide or shift.

• Quick escalation and barriers removal. Sometimes, a blocker is beyond the team’s reach. A manager’s presence can signal that a blocker will be addressed, not ignored, and help clear organizational obstacles without slowing the team down.

• Mentoring and learning. For newer teams, a manager can model how to ask the right questions, how to frame concerns constructively, and how to balance detail with big-picture thinking. That kind of presence can seed healthier, more professional discussions over time.

• Stakeholder representation. In some contexts, a manager acts as the bridge to other units, governance bodies, or customers. When reviews involve cross-domain concerns, that bridge can be essential, ensuring the requirements surface are realistic and testable across the board.

When attendance can hinder the process

• Suppressing dissent. If a manager dominates, the room can dim the voices of testers, analysts, or developers who fear judgment or retaliation. In a review, that fear isn't a tiny thing—it’s the difference between catching a defect early and letting it slip into production.

• Shifting power dynamics. A room that includes a manager with a strong presence can unintentionally shift the locus of control. People might defer to the manager instead of voicing their honest assessments, which muddies the signal you need from a good review.

• Slower cycles. Time is money in software and systems work. If every review becomes a high-stakes, formal event with lengthy decisions and approvals, the team’s momentum can stall. That’s especially true for smaller projects or teams that run lean.

• Focus drift. When the manager’s questions push toward optimization or strategic alignment, the core intent of a review—confirming that the requirements are clear, testable, and feasible—can get hijacked by broader debates.

A practical framework to decide

Use a simple, people-first lens. Ask these questions before deciding who attends and how:

• What is the review’s purpose? Is it primarily to validate requirements for correctness and testability, or to align on strategy and resource commitments?

• Who are the key voices? Are the people affected by the decisions in the room, including stakeholders from other domains, customers, or compliance?

• What’s the team’s maturity? A mature team with strong self-organization may benefit more from observer-style attendance, while a newer team might gain from guided facilitation by a manager.

• What’s the risk of escalation or blocking? If the project depends on timely decisions, manager presence can be a lever to move things forward; if not, it could become a crutch.

• How will attendance be structured? If a manager attends, what role will they play—observer, participant, or facilitator? How will ground rules be set to protect psychological safety?

A few practical ways to structure attendance

• Observers only. A manager sits in but doesn’t actively participate in the dialogue. They’re there to understand context and provide visibility, not to steer discussions.

• Rotating participation. Different managers attend different reviews, sharing the floor with the team. This reduces a single person’s pressure and distributes leadership presence.

• Clear roles and ground rules. If a manager participates, define the role: they can ask clarifying questions, help prioritize issues, or relate the discussion to higher-level goals—but they should refrain from re-architecting the solutions on the spot.

• Timeboxing and post-review follow-up. Keep the review tight, with a clear agenda and a brief after-action note that outlines who will act on what. The manager’s role then becomes ensuring follow-through, not micromanaging the discussion in real time.

• Separate forums for governance. If governance questions loom large, handle them in a separate session with a designated sponsor or governance lead. This keeps the technical review focused on the problem at hand.

Real-world analogies that shed light

• Think of a kitchen run by a head chef and a sous-chef. The team cooks up a new menu (the requirements), and the head chef (the manager) can taste and adjust in real time. If the head chef’s presence inspires confidence and keeps a steady standard, dinner goes smoothly. If that voice becomes overly dominant, other cooks might stop sharing daring ideas. The best outcomes usually come from balancing guidance with room to experiment.

• Or imagine a software-audit style review as a flight check. The pilot (the team) has to confirm fuel, engines, and weather. An air traffic controller (the manager in attendance) can offer critical clearance or point to a potential hazard. The best sessions are those where the controller communicates clearly and leaves space for the crew to confirm and decide, rather than prescribing every move.

• A more human lens: we all crave recognition and safety. If a manager shows up with a genuine intention to support, not punish, the mood shifts. People speak up, they admit uncertainties, and they commit to a plan they helped shape. If that empathy is missing, the room tightens up and risk signals get buried.

What this means for IREB-style reviews

In foundations of requirements engineering, the emphasis is on clarity, verification, and collaboration. A thoughtful attendance plan respects those pillars:

• Clarity: everyone should leave the room with a shared, unambiguous understanding of what’s decided and what remains uncertain.

• Verification: the team should be able to demonstrate that requirements are testable and complete, not merely discussed.

• Collaboration: diverse perspectives—from analysts, developers, testers, to SMEs and stakeholders—should be invited, with a culture that welcomes constructive challenges.

To keep things healthy, remember these guardrails:

• Be intentional about purpose. Before the review starts, spell out why a manager’s presence adds value that session alone cannot deliver.

• Protect psychological safety. Ground rules should explicitly encourage honest feedback and discourage personal criticism.

• Separate decisions from approvals. The team should decide as far as possible; approvals can be handled in a separate governance step.

• Keep the tempo. Short, focused reviews with clear outcomes beat long, meandering sessions that lose momentum.

A concise decision guide for your team

• If the team is mature, and the review is primarily about validation and alignment, an observer role for managers often works well.

• If the review hinges on high-stakes decisions, and cross-group dependencies are heavy, a carefully scripted role for managers can help—provided it’s structured to minimize disruption.

• If there’s a risk that leadership presence will silence voices, consider alternate formats: a quick pre-meeting with the manager to surface concerns, or a post-review debrief that addresses governance needs without interrupting the discussion flow.

• Always document outcomes, owners, and deadlines. Without that, even the sharpest review can drift.

A final reflection

The bottom line is simple and human: it depends on the people involved. The most productive reviews are not about who sits in the chair, but how the room makes space for clear thinking, honest feedback, and shared ownership. When managers attend, they should do so in a way that amplifies the team’s capability rather than eclipsing it. When they don’t attend, the team can still thrive if there’s enough clarity, sponsorship, and a well-tuned process to keep information flowing.

If you’re shaping how your team handles reviews, start with a quick dialogue: what do we want to achieve in this session, and who needs to be present to make that happen? A few minutes of upfront clarity can save hours later—and it preserves that delicate balance between guidance and autonomy that lies at the heart of effective requirements work.

In the end, the right approach is the one that respects people, protects the quality of the work, and keeps the project moving forward with confidence. The answer isn’t a universal rule; it’s a thoughtful choice grounded in the people and the context you’re dealing with. And that, quite honestly, feels like the core principle any solid foundation—whether you’re learning, practicing, or applying requirements engineering—should uphold. If you keep that in view, you’ll navigate these moments with pragmatism, empathy, and a touch of practical wisdom.