Most organisations don’t set out to over-promise.
Policies are usually written with good intent. They aim to be fair, clear and reassuring. Over time, though, that intent can quietly turn into risk.
I’ve seen it happen again and again.
A policy is written, reviewed, tweaked. Language gets stronger. Timescales get tighter. Commitments get broader. None of it feels unreasonable in isolation. But gradually the policy starts to describe an ideal service rather than the one the organisation can reliably deliver day in, day out.
That gap is where dissatisfaction grows.
And it’s often where complaints escalate.
When complaints are reviewed, challenged or escalated, the starting point is often the organisation’s own policy.
What did you say you would do?
Did you do it?
If not, why not?
Policies don’t just guide practice. They shape expectations and become evidence of what people were told to expect. If a complaints policy or service policy sets standards that can’t be met consistently, it creates risk even where staff are acting reasonably and in good faith.
I’ve seen situations where the underlying service issue was relatively minor, but the policy wording left no room for flexibility. The response wasn’t poor, but it didn’t match what the policy promised. That distinction matters.
There are some familiar patterns that show up during policy reviews:
None of this happens because people don’t care. It happens because policies are often treated as static documents, rather than tools that need regular checking against how services actually operate.
Over time, that misalignment shows up in complaints handling, decision-making and trust.
There can be a reluctance to talk openly about minimum standards, as if they suggest low ambition. In practice, they do the opposite.
Clear minimum standards in policies:
They set a dependable baseline. From there, organisations can go further where capacity allows.
The risk comes when the baseline itself is set higher than the organisation can consistently sustain.
A good policy describes what you can do well, most of the time, for most people. Not what you hope to deliver on a perfect day.
When policies over-promise, staff are left trying to manage the gap between wording and reality. That creates pressure, inconsistency and frustration on all sides.
When policies are realistic, clear and proportionate, staff can focus on doing good work rather than managing expectations they didn’t set.
That’s better for complaints handling, decision-making and morale.
Policy reviews are often triggered by something going wrong. A rise in complaints. Repeated challenges. A sense that things feel harder than they should.
In my experience, the most effective policy reviews happen before that point.
A good policy review asks straightforward, practical questions:
This isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about making sure your standards work in the real world.
If policies haven’t been reviewed recently, or have gradually expanded without being tested against practice, it’s worth taking a fresh look. Not to make them sound better, but to make them more robust.
Often, that’s where organisations see the biggest improvement in confidence, consistency and outcomes.
Policy reviews highlight where policies no longer reflect how services actually operate.