Who Made That Call? The High Cost of Blurry Decision Authority
In larger teams and departments, decision-making can appear seamless from the outside. Job titles, reporting structures, and established routines suggest there’s order. But when decisions that impact multiple functions are made without clarity or transparency, the fallout can be swift and costly.
Last week, I witnessed a situation that captured this perfectly. A decision was made not to publicly address an issue that had significant internal implications. Several team members believed the Chief Marketing Officer had signed off on the call. But the CMO had never been looped in. Meanwhile, the Customer Service team—who would be directly impacted by the internal response—had no voice in the process.
The result? Confusion, frustration, and a wave of internal backlash. Not because the decision was wrong, but because no one knew who made it, how it was made, or why some key teams were left out.
The Assumption of Clarity
In organizations with multiple departments and decision-makers, it’s easy to assume that structure guarantees clarity. But titles don’t equal alignment. And more people often means more assumptions:
“Surely leadership signed off on this.”
“I thought that was already decided.”
“Why weren’t we consulted?”
According to McKinsey & Company, companies that clearly designate decision rights and embrace transparency consistently move faster and deliver higher-quality outcomes. When those elements are missing, even well-intentioned teams can find themselves spinning in confusion, duplicating work, or worse—damaging internal trust (McKinsey, 2023).
The Cost of Decision Ambiguity
When decision-making is vague or distributed without alignment, you often see:
Leaders getting blindsided by decisions they didn’t make—or weren’t aware of
Communication plans rolled out without the right people informed
Key departments feeling left out, leading to disengagement or internal conflict
These aren’t just process issues. They’re trust issues—because when people don’t know who made a decision, weren’t consulted, or find out after the fact, it sends a message that their voice doesn’t matter. That lack of transparency and inclusion chips away at psychological safety. Over time, it leads to disengagement, second-guessing, and a culture of caution rather than ownership. And trust, once fractured, takes time to rebuild.
Delegating Decisions and Making Space for Mistakes
Delegating decision-making isn't just about empowerment—it's about building capability. But for that to work, leaders have to create space for mistakes.
According to McKinsey & Company, organizations that improve decision speed and quality do so by clarifying who decides and by allowing teams the room to learn through execution—even when it includes small failures. When leaders don’t make room for this, trust erodes. Team members start second-guessing themselves or avoid making calls altogether, fearing reversal or reprimand.
When people are given ownership without psychological safety, what looks like delegation is really abdication.
Teams thrive when leaders:
Clearly define decision boundaries.
Normalize thoughtful risk-taking.
Use missteps as learning opportunities rather than performance judgments.
Blame-free space for course correction is what makes delegation real—and what helps decisions move faster and more confidently at every level.
What Effective Decision Governance Looks Like
Clarity doesn’t require more hierarchy—it requires shared understanding. Here are a few practices that support strong decision governance in larger teams:
Designated decision roles: Use frameworks like RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide) to clearly assign roles in key decisions.
Pre-alignment check-ins: Before a communication or action goes public, confirm alignment with all accountable stakeholders.
Cross-functional inclusion: Involve teams that will be directly impacted—even if they’re not the final decision-makers.
Transparent documentation: Summarize and share decisions and rationale to prevent mixed messages.
When these structures are in place, teams are less likely to be caught off guard—and more likely to move together with speed and confidence.
Your Reflection Moment
When was the last time your team paused to clarify who makes which decisions—and how those decisions get communicated?
If that conversation hasn’t happened in a while, it might be time for a reset.
The Strategic Execution Review is a complimentary tool I use with leadership teams to uncover decision-making breakdowns, clarify roles, and strengthen execution.
Because strong decisions aren’t just about what gets decided—they’re about how the decision gets made, who makes it, and who needs to be involved along the way.
