Who's Deciding What? Why Teams Need a Smarter Decision System

In small, fast-moving teams, it’s easy to assume that collaboration means everyone has a say in every decision. But when clarity is missing, decisions stall, get remade, or end up in the hands of the wrong people.

One leader I spoke with recently shared their frustration: the strategic decisions that were made during team meetings with clear input from relevant stakeholders were later changed in one-on-one conversations with the CEO. Not only did this undermine the original decision, it created confusion, slowed execution, and damaged trust across the team.

This scenario is more common than we think.

Without intentional decision frameworks, small teams fall into two extremes:

• Everything is a group decision, which slows momentum and burns out the leadership team.

• Everything is a top-down decision, which erodes ownership and leaves people waiting for direction.

When you’re running a small team, you don’t need more bureaucracy—but you do need decision clarity. That means:

• Knowing who owns what kinds of decisions.

• Agreeing on when and how decisions are made.

• Communicating decisions in a way that builds alignment and trust.

The Cost of Informal Decision-Making

Lack of clarity around decision-making has real costs:

• Delayed execution

• Conflicting actions

• Reopened conversations

• Wasted time and energy

McKinsey & Company has found that decision effectiveness is a strong predictor of business performance. In fact, companies that excel at decision-making generate higher returns than those that don’t (McKinsey, 2019). Yet, teams often miss how poor decision making hurts performance until results suffer.

What Smart Decision Systems Look Like in Small Teams

You don’t need complicated org charts or approval flows. But you do need structure. Effective decision systems for small teams include:

• Defined decision rights: Who is responsible for making which types of decisions?

• A shared vocabulary: Does your team know the difference between input, recommendation, and ownership?

• Clear communication norms: Once a decision is made, how is it communicated and upheld?

In a recent Forbes article, leadership expert Keith Ferrazzi underscored the importance of speed and inclusion in decision-making. He recommends using defined roles—who contributes, who decides, who implements—to reduce ambiguity and accelerate action. Ferrazzi also emphasized the need for alignment post-decision, noting that teams must rally behind the choice even if it wasn’t their preferred outcome (Forbes, 2024).

What About When a Decision Needs to Be Revisited?

Sometimes, new information, strategic shifts, or overlooked perspectives require a team to revisit a decision. That’s not a failure—it’s part of being adaptive.

What matters is how a team handles it:

• Revisit decisions transparently and with the right people in the room.

• Clearly communicate the reason for reopening the decision.

• Document what’s changing and why, so alignment doesn’t erode.

When teams create a clear protocol for how decisions are made and how they can be revisited, they build trust, consistency, and shared accountability.

Moving from Chaos to Clarity

The goal isn’t to make your team more rigid. It’s to make your team more resilient.

If your team has ever:

• Repeated a conversation that was supposedly already decided

• Had to ask, “Who’s responsible for this?”

• Felt confused about what was actually agreed upon...

...then it might be time to take a closer look at your decision systems.

The Strategic Execution Review is a complimentary tool I use to help teams uncover where execution is breaking down—and decision-making is often a major area. If you’re noticing decision fatigue, missed handoffs, or shifting priorities, let’s talk.

Because the right decision at the right time can be the difference between momentum and missed opportunity.