Inadequate decision-making
Business problem description
Decision-making within the organization functions poorly because decisions are left pending, postponed, or get stuck in drawn-out discussions. This is a common but serious management problem because it affects the organization’s ability to act, adapt, and generate results. Assumptions:
- The organization has several decision-making levels and cross-functional dependencies.
- The management team or steering groups make a significant part of the strategic decisions.
- The problem is recurring and not limited to a single project.
The business consequences can be significant:
- Delays in projects and initiatives.
- Lost business opportunities.
- Increased frustration among employees and managers.
- Unclear priorities.
- Lower level of responsibility.
- Increased costs due to rework and waiting times.
Stakeholders affected are the board, CEO, management team, middle managers, project managers, and employees. When decisions take too long, an informal organization often develops where individuals try to circumvent the decision-making processes to get things done. This risks creating parallel power structures and further weakening governance. From an organizational perspective, the problem is rarely that people are unwilling to make decisions. More often, the organization lacks clear decision-making mandates, a defined decision-making process, or sufficient decision-making information at the right time. The symptom is slow decision-making. The core problem is usually deficiencies in governance, the division of responsibilities, or management systems.
Historical overview
Based on experience-based patterns, there are some common development paths that lead to this situation.
Phase 1: Growth and increased complexity
When the organization is smaller, decisions can be made quickly by the founders or a small management team. As the business grows, more functions, more stakeholders, and greater risks are added. If the governance model does not evolve at the same pace, bottlenecks arise.
Phase 2: Consensus culture
Many organizations develop a culture where everyone must agree before a decision is made. The intention is often good, but the consequence is that consultation is confused with decision-making. The discussions continue even when sufficient evidence is available.
Phase 3: Risk avoidance
If previous decisions led to criticism or negative consequences, the organization may be cautious. Managers then avoid making decisions without extensive analyses and engagement rounds. Decisions are postponed to the future to minimize personal responsibility.
Phase 4: Accumulated dependencies
When many decisions require approval from several functions, queues form. Examples:
- Law awaits the economy.
- The economy awaits the business.
- The management is awaiting the operation to begin.
No one owns the entire process, which creates waiting times.
Phase 5: Institutionalization of slowness
Eventually, the slowness becomes normalized. Employees begin to expect decisions to take months rather than weeks. Projects adjust their planning accordingly, which further exacerbates the problem. This history is based on general organizational patterns and should be verified against the organization’s actual development.
The rotor shaft problem
Unclear decision-making mandate
High impact, high probability
Common signs:
- Several people believe they own the same decision.
- No one knows who ultimately decides.
- Decisions are escalated unnecessarily.
Symptoms explained:
- Long bench.
- Repeated discussions.
- Unclear division of responsibilities.
Inadequate decision-making
High impact, high probability
Decisions are often lacking:
- Time limit.
- Decision-maker.
- Decision support system.
- Priority logic.
Symptoms:
- Cases are brought up at several meetings.
- Decisions are not documented.
- Implementation fails to occur.
Consensus culture over responsibility culture
High impact, medium probability
The organization seeks unanimity when the majority or designated decision-maker should decide.
Symptoms:
- Meetings are used for discussion rather than for decision-making.
- Conflict anxiety.
- Long anchoring processes.
Overloaded management team
Medium impact, high probability
Management handles operational issues that should be handled further down in the organization.
Symptoms:
- Full agendas.
- Many postponed cases.
- Operational decisions at the strategic level.
Lack of transparency and follow-up
Medium impact
No consolidated overview of:
- Ongoing decision.
- Due date.
- Responsible.
- Status of implementation.
Symptoms:
- Decisions are lost.
- No one knows who owns it.
Applicable tools and areas of knowledge
Governance and decision architecture
The most relevant framework is a clear decision architecture where each decision is categorized:
- Strategically.
- Tactically.
- Operational.
Each level has clear mandates and escalation rules.
RACI or RAPID
To eliminate confusion regarding mandates, the organization should adopt a model that clarifies:
- Who I recommend.
- Who is consulted.
- Who decides.
- Who implements it.
This reduces both duplication and uncertainty.
PMO perspective
A PMO or Chief of Staff office should establish a decision pipeline where each decision receives:
- Owner.
- Decision date.
- Decision support system.
- Status.
- Implementation follow-up.
Change management
The cultural issue must be addressed. The organization needs to move from:
”We make decisions when everyone agrees”
to:
”We make decisions when the right person has sufficient evidence.”
Management system
Management meetings should be divided into:
- Information points.
- Points of discussion.
- Decision points.
Points of discussion should be prepared before the meeting.
Implementation of the Chief of Staff
A Chief of Staff function can serve as a catalyst for faster and more disciplined decision-making.
Mandate
The Chief of Staff should be responsible for:
- The quality of the decision-making process.
- The effectiveness of the management team.
- Priority management.
- Follow-up of decisions.
However, the role should not take over the decision-making process itself from responsible managers.
First 30 days
- Map out all the recurring decision-making forums.
- Identify decisions that have been open for more than 30 days.
- Document decision mandates by function.
- Establish a central decision-making register.
Day 30-90
Before:
- Standardized decision-making support tools.
- Decision calendar.
- Escalation rules.
- Clear responsibility matrix.
New governance model
Each decision must contain:
- Decision-maker.
- Last decision date.
- Recommendation.
- Risk assessment.
- Decisions.
- Responsible for implementation.
Measurement data
Follow regularly:
- Average decision time.
- Number of open decisions.
- Number of decisions older than 30 days.
- Share of completed decisions.
- Meeting effectiveness of the management team.
Success image
Within 6-12 months, the organization should be able to reduce decision cycle times by 30-50 %%, while increasing accountability and transparency.
Summary
The problem is likely not that the organization lacks competent leaders, but that decision-making is unclear. The most likely root causes are:
- Unclear decision-making mandate.
- Weak decision-making process.
- Consensus culture.
- Overloaded management.
- Poor follow-up.
The most important measure is to introduce a formal decision-making architecture with clear mandates, decision-makers, and follow-up. A Chief of Staff function can create the discipline required to ensure that decisions do not get stuck between functions or meetings.
Recommended next decision: Conduct a quick diagnosis of the organization's 20 most recent major decisions and map out where the delays occur in the process. This provides a fact-based basis for which governance change will have the greatest impact.
Read more about decision-making here->
