Send a text
McKinsey found that organizations with clear decision rights are 2.3x more likely to achieve above-median financial performance. And yet most organizations have never mapped who actually owns a decision versus who gets consulted versus who gets to veto.
Here's a scenario you'll recognize. The vendor was chosen two months ago. The business case was approved. The budget exists. And yet you're sitting in another meeting. Because someone in finance asked a clarifying question. Then legal wanted to review the terms again. Then the CFO's chief of staff mentioned the CEO might want visibility. Everyone in the room is reasonable. Everyone is collaborative. And everyone is waiting for somebody else to say yes. This is not a decision meeting. This is a permission meeting.
What You'll Learn
The structural mechanism behind organizational slowness:
- Ambiguity creates risk. Risk creates caution. Caution creates consensus-seeking. Consensus-seeking expands the stakeholder set. More stakeholders slow cycle time. Slow cycle time reduces accountability. Reduced accountability increases ambiguity. The loop closes and accelerates.
- The system is teaching your people not to decide. A director who makes a hiring call without executive visibility gets questioned in a leadership meeting. She learns the cost of deciding is higher than the cost of delaying. Next time she escalates earlier. The time after that, earlier still.
- Empowerment speeches don't work because empowerment is not a speech. It is a grant of authority with defined boundaries, explicit escalation criteria, and known consequences. Without that architecture, empowerment is an instruction to guess.
The four plays:
- Map your permission loops. Pick your five highest-friction decisions. Trace the real path, not the official process. Most delays happen not because someone said no, but because someone was uncertain whether they were allowed to say yes.
- Define irreversibility. For every role that owns significant decisions, answer three questions: What decisions are irreversibly yours? What decisions require consultation and from whom? What decisions must you escalate and under what conditions?
- Separate consultation from consensus. Consultation means input is gathered. Consensus means everyone agrees. The first is efficient. The second is paralyzing. Five consultants is collaboration. Five vetoes is gridlock.
- Make escalation faster than socializing. When escalating is easier than scheduling alignment meetings, the permission loop loses its power.
Key Quotes
"This is not a decision meeting. This is a permission meeting. And your organization is full of them."
"Empowerment is not a speech. It is architecture. You cannot ask people to be decisive in a system that has made decision authority ambiguous."
"The organization begins to treat decisiveness as recklessness. It begins to reward the people who are best at managing stakeholder politics, not the people who are best at making decisions."
The Diagnostic Questions
- How many of your recent delays were caused by someone saying no versus someone being uncertain they could say yes?
- Can your direct reports answer what decisions are irreversibly theirs without asking you?
- When a decision takes three weeks that should take three days, is that complexity or is that the permission loop?
Support the show
Resources
- My Talent Sherpa: mytalentsherpa.com
- Talent Sherpa Substack: talentsherpa.substack.com
- Scott Morris / Propulsion AI: getpropulsion.ai
- Dripify: try.dripify.com/talentsherpa
