The executive team meeting ends. Everyone nods in agreement. Two months later, nothing has moved forward. Sound familiar?
Maybe it’s time to ask yourselves: Are we clear on how decisions get made within our team?
Your answer might be “of course,” but does the rest of your team know that? Would they be able to clearly explain your team’s decision rights if you asked them?
Here’s what I see happening: Many exec teams have never actually defined how decisions should get made. They assume everyone understands the unspoken rules. But assumptions create chaos.
This is why decision rights matter.
Decision rights are the explicit agreements that define:
- Who owns the decision
- How the decision will be made
- What happens when there isn’t agreement
I’m working with a client right now who’s naming this head-on. As we dive into strategic planning, we’re mapping their decision rights.
Because depending on the decision, the rights may change:
- Some decisions require consensus.
- Some need a majority vote.
- Some are the purview of the CEO alone.
- Some sit squarely with the board.
- Some follow a recommendation model: gather input from the team, but one person ultimately decides.
When you don’t define decision rights, you get the dysfunction that kills momentum:
- The meeting after the meeting, where the real debate happens
- Side conversations that undermine alignment
- Teams who say “sure” in the room but actively resist once they leave
- Decision by inertia, where nothing moves because no one knows who’s supposed to act
Mapping decision rights isn’t bureaucracy—it’s infrastructure for executive effectiveness. It’s the difference between clarity and confusion. Between traction and churn.
It’s the difference between a team that talks and a team that executes.
Where are decision rights unclear on your team? And what’s it costing you?
Like this post? Want to see more? Connect with me on LinkedIn.
Recent Comments