100 100 100. One thing that I've found related to this that has been SO interesting to experience has been that when I come into an org and am ready and willing to provide strong decision making and/or decision making guidance, I find resistance. It's almost as though it's more comfortable (for individuals, teams, orgs) to live in the indecisiveness than to have to face the reality of a decision that requires action. Hmmmmm. Thanks for the great article.
Hala, this is such an important extension of the idea.
Indecision is often emotionally safer than commitment. A real decision creates consequences, eliminates alternatives, makes ownership visible, and forces action. Ambiguity preserves optionality and diffuses accountability. No one can be wrong if nothing has truly been decided.
In scaling companies, indecision can masquerade as collaboration. It feels inclusive and thoughtful, but it’s often risk avoidance. Strong decision-making moves an organization from discussion to commitment. And that’s where resistance shows up . . . not because people dislike clarity, but because clarity carries weight. Execution drag is often the interest we pay for decisions we weren’t willing to fully make.
I see this so often too - which is why came up with the Decision Stack as a mental model to address it. Read more about it at https://www.thedecisionstack.com
This framing is spot-on. The observation that product becomes the shock absorber for upstream decision ambiguity explains so much organizational friction. I've watched teams burn cycles on rework becasue nobody wanted to make the actual call on constraints earlier. The part about decisions being too reversible at scale is underrated - reversibility is great in early stages but becomes a tax when context fragments. Sharp diagnosis.
Appreciate this. The “reversibility tax” is exactly the dynamic I was trying to surface, and you articulated it crisply.
Early on, optionality feels like speed. At scale, unresolved constraints just push cost downstream, where it shows up as rework, coordination drag, and quiet erosion of trust.
Nobody decided. So everyone pays.
The part that’s hardest for leaders to see is that teams don’t stop moving when decisions are soft. They compensate. That’s why it looks like execution trouble instead of what it actually is: leadership avoiding commitment in an environment that now requires it.
100 100 100. One thing that I've found related to this that has been SO interesting to experience has been that when I come into an org and am ready and willing to provide strong decision making and/or decision making guidance, I find resistance. It's almost as though it's more comfortable (for individuals, teams, orgs) to live in the indecisiveness than to have to face the reality of a decision that requires action. Hmmmmm. Thanks for the great article.
Hala, this is such an important extension of the idea.
Indecision is often emotionally safer than commitment. A real decision creates consequences, eliminates alternatives, makes ownership visible, and forces action. Ambiguity preserves optionality and diffuses accountability. No one can be wrong if nothing has truly been decided.
In scaling companies, indecision can masquerade as collaboration. It feels inclusive and thoughtful, but it’s often risk avoidance. Strong decision-making moves an organization from discussion to commitment. And that’s where resistance shows up . . . not because people dislike clarity, but because clarity carries weight. Execution drag is often the interest we pay for decisions we weren’t willing to fully make.
Really appreciate you adding this nuance.
I see this so often too - which is why came up with the Decision Stack as a mental model to address it. Read more about it at https://www.thedecisionstack.com
This framing is spot-on. The observation that product becomes the shock absorber for upstream decision ambiguity explains so much organizational friction. I've watched teams burn cycles on rework becasue nobody wanted to make the actual call on constraints earlier. The part about decisions being too reversible at scale is underrated - reversibility is great in early stages but becomes a tax when context fragments. Sharp diagnosis.
Appreciate this. The “reversibility tax” is exactly the dynamic I was trying to surface, and you articulated it crisply.
Early on, optionality feels like speed. At scale, unresolved constraints just push cost downstream, where it shows up as rework, coordination drag, and quiet erosion of trust.
Nobody decided. So everyone pays.
The part that’s hardest for leaders to see is that teams don’t stop moving when decisions are soft. They compensate. That’s why it looks like execution trouble instead of what it actually is: leadership avoiding commitment in an environment that now requires it.
Glad the diagnosis resonated.