Who Decides What?

Why unclear decisions slow teams more than you think

1) A real-world scenario

You are running an improvement initiative that should be straightforward. The team has done the analysis, the proposal is clear, and the next step is a simple decision.

Then the familiar sequence starts.

Someone asks, “Do we need sign-off from Finance?”Another person says, “Legal might want to review this.”A manager forwards the question to a steering group.Two weeks later the decision returns, but with new conditions, so the team has to adjust and resubmit.

No one is incompetent. No one is blocking on purpose. Yet progress slows down because decisions are not a clean step in the flow. They are a foggy area that work must pass through.

For innovation and improvement managers, this is one of the most frustrating forms of waste because it is hard to point to. It hides behind caution, governance, and “alignment.”

2) The underlying pattern

Decision friction is not just slow approvals. It is the combination of three things:

Unclear decision rights.

People do not know who can decide. Or worse, they think they know, but discover later that someone else has veto power.

Unclear decision criteria.

Even if the decision maker is known, the team does not know what “good enough” looks like. This creates repeated iterations. Each iteration feels like diligence, but it is rework.

Fear of consequences.

In many organisations, the safest choice is to escalate or delay. If making a decision has personal risk and waiting has no risk, waiting wins.

The uncomfortable truth is that decision systems often reward caution over progress. That is not a cultural flaw. It is a structural incentive problem.

This is why decision friction tends to grow over time:

• More stakeholders get added

• More approvals get layered on

• More exceptions appear

• More people protect themselves by escalating

The result is predictable: teams do not stop working. They start working around decisions, which creates hidden delays, parallel work, and follow-up meetings.

3) Why common fixes fail

When decision friction becomes painful, organisations often reach for fixes that sound sensible but do not address the pattern.

Fix 1: Create more governance.

Extra committees and steering groups can help for big investments. But used broadly, they add coordination overhead. Decisions become meetings. Meetings become delays.

Fix 2: Ask for faster decisions.

This puts pressure on individuals without changing the system that makes decisions risky. People will respond by asking for more information, more reviews, or more alignment, which slows things down again.

Fix 3: Document everything.

Documentation is useful, but it does not solve unclear decision rights. You can have beautiful documents and still not know who owns the call.

Fix 4: Push responsibility down without clarity.

Some leaders try to empower teams by saying “You decide.” If decision criteria and risk boundaries are not clear, this creates anxiety and inconsistency. Teams either freeze or make decisions that later get reversed.

The pattern is uncomfortable: clarity is not achieved by asking people to communicate more. It is achieved by designing decision pathways that are explicit and safe.

4) What actually helps

Decision speed improves when you make three things visible: who decides, what they need, and how fast they respond.

Define decision types.

Not every decision deserves the same process. Create simple categories such as:

• low-risk operational decisions

• medium decisions that affect multiple teams

• high-risk strategic decisions

Then match governance to the category.

Assign clear decision owners.

For recurring decisions, name the role that owns the call. Not a committee. A role. Committees can advise, but ownership must be clear.

A practical rule: if you cannot name who decides in one sentence, you do not have decision clarity.

Clarify decision criteria upfront.

Teams waste time when they guess what leadership wants. Make criteria visible. Examples:

• cost threshold

• risk threshold

• compliance checks

• impact measures

This reduces rework because teams build the first version correctly.

Set decision response times.

Flow breaks when decisions linger. Define response expectations. Even if the answer is “not now,” a fast no is better than a slow maybe. It allows teams to stop, adjust, or re-scope.

Reduce approval loops with “one accountable, many consulted.”

Many delays come from trying to make everyone comfortable. Replace that with a clear consultation model: input is collected, but one role decides.

Track where decisions get stuck.

This is slightly uncomfortable, but powerful. If you track decision cycle time across a few initiatives, patterns appear quickly. You will see which approvals are redundant, which criteria are unclear, and where fear drives escalation.

Use tools and AI to support, not replace, decisions.

AI can summarise options, risks, and context. But the main bottleneck is rarely information. It is ownership and confidence. Fix that first.

5) One reflective question

Where in your organisation do people wait, not because they lack information, but because they are unsure who can say yes?

6) And now?

If you suspect decision friction is slowing progress, a short Work Friction Pulse can surface whether clarity and decision rights are a dominant friction signal, and which areas are worth examining more closely before launching another improvement initiative.

Take the Friction Pulse