“The most common source of mistakes in management decisions is the emphasis on finding the right answer rather than the right question.” – Peter Drucker, The Practice of Management, 1954
The Meeting That Resolved Nothing
The meeting ends on a reasonable note. The discussion was substantive. People contributed, listened, and by the close of the session there was a general sense of alignment. The right things were said. The direction felt clear. And then, several days later, you notice that nothing has actually moved.
It is not that people resisted. Nobody pushed back or simply decided to go their own way. The problem is more ordinary than that. Nobody was entirely certain who owned the decision rights. Involvement in the conversation had been taken, by everyone in the room, as roughly equivalent to shared responsibility – which, in practice, meant that the responsibility belonged to no one in particular.
In growing businesses, this pattern appears far more often than many founders realise. It tends to emerge gradually, usually in organisations that are otherwise functioning reasonably well. The business expands, responsibilities spread, teams become more specialised, and operational complexity increases. What does not always evolve at the same pace is the operating reality surrounding decision ownership itself, and this distinction matters more than it first appears.
Governance is often interpreted as something formal and procedural: boards, compliance obligations, reporting structures, policies. Yet much of the lived reality of governance sits elsewhere. It appears in the everyday distribution of authority inside the business, in who can decide, who must be consulted, and who carries accountability once the discussion ends.
Those questions shape the speed, consistency, and clarity of organisational life far more than many structural diagrams suggest.
Participation Is Not Authority
Most business decisions involve more than one person. Someone contributes perspective. Someone else has relevant experience. A third person may need to be informed, or may have an interest in the outcome. In smaller businesses, this kind of collective involvement feels natural and is usually healthy. Problems emerge when the different roles inside a decision – contributing, deciding, and being accountable for the outcome – are never clearly separated.
In many founder-led businesses, these three things gradually merge. Meetings become conversations where input and approval and accountability all flow together, and where the line between being consulted and being the decision-maker becomes genuinely unclear. People who were asked for their view begin to feel responsible for the outcome. People who were supposed to decide wait for a broader consensus that nobody explicitly requested. The accountability, meanwhile, attaches itself to nobody in particular because the decision itself was never formally owned by somebody.
The absence of this distinction is not dramatic. It accumulates through small moments – a follow-up that never happens, a project that stalls between two people who each thought the other was driving it, a decision revisited in a second meeting because the first one never actually concluded.
Experienced operators eventually recognise that most meaningful decisions contain several separate dimensions. One group contributes perspective. Another may need to be consulted because the consequences affect them directly. Someone else carries accountability afterwards. But somewhere within that structure, one person still needs to hold the authority to decide.
Organisations where decision authority is clearer – and the Harvard Business Review’s piece “Who Has the D?” remains a useful reference on this, particularly for businesses in scale – tend to distinguish carefully between these roles. In most SMEs, that distinction is informal at best, and absent at worst.
The Gap Between the Title and the Decision Rights
Early in a business’s life, the founder’s centrality in decision-making is not a structural flaw. It is a practical reality. The founder holds the context, the relationships, the financial instinct, and the ability to resolve ambiguity in real time. When the business is small enough, this works well. Decisions happen quickly. Standards are maintained. The system functions because one person is its integrating mechanism.
The difficulty arrives later, when the business has grown but the decision-making habits have not fully kept pace. A head of operations is now in place, responsible for the operational performance of the business. A commercial director manages the client relationships. A finance lead oversees the numbers. The roles are real, the responsibilities are genuine, and yet the authority required to make those roles fully functional has never been explicitly designed.
This is the gap that tends to be invisible from the inside. A head of operations who cannot make decisions involving expenditure, prioritisation, customer exceptions, or resource allocation without checking upward is not really operating with full operational authority. A commercial director who needs the founder present for any significant client conversation is not actually directing the commercial relationship. The title exists. The authority that would give the title genuine meaning has never been formally assigned, because the business grew around the founder’s presence rather than away from it.
There is a useful distinction here between delegation and decision rights, and it is worth deeper consideration. Delegation transfers activity. A founder who delegates a task remains the decision owner; they have simply asked someone else to do the work. Decision rights establish ownership at a structural level – the decision authority belongs to the role, not to a temporary arrangement. One is situational. The other becomes part of how the business actually operates.
In many growing businesses, what looks like delegation is, on examination, closer to the first kind. The task moves. The authority does not.
What Ambiguity Costs in Practice
There is a particular feel to working life inside a business where ownership boundaries remain uncertain. It shows up in small, recognisable ways. Managers check upward before making calls that are, by any reasonable measure, within their remit. Projects slow at the point where a decision is needed because the person who should make it is not sure they are entitled to do so. Meetings are scheduled not to discuss something new, but to revisit something that was apparently resolved three weeks earlier.
None of this looks like a structural problem from the outside. It looks like hesitation, or caution, or – frustratingly – a lack of initiative. The instinct is to address it as a people problem: more coaching, clearer expectations, stronger accountability. What is rarely examined is whether the organisational structure itself has addressed the issues behind the hesitation. When teams underperform in growing SMEs, the cause is more often structural than personal – and unclear decision authority is one of the most consistent contributors.
The cost is not only in speed. It is in the quality of the decisions that do get made.
Where authority is clear, people generally operate with more confidence and less hesitation. Discussions become shorter because the boundaries are understood. Accountability becomes cleaner because ownership is visible. Decisions happen closer to where operational knowledge actually sits.
When people are uncertain about the boundaries of their authority, they tend to make smaller, safer calls – or to avoid making calls at all. The decisions that require genuine judgement, the kind that benefit from being made by the person closest to the situation, drift upward by default. And the person they drift toward is almost always already carrying more decision load than the business should be placing on a single point. In response, leaders often interpret slowing momentum as a motivation issue when, in practice, people are responding rationally to uncertainty about where important decisions actually sit.
Larger organisations sometimes attempt to formalise decision rights through models such as RACI structures or similar decision-mapping approaches. Yet inside most SMEs, these issues rarely appear through formal frameworks, but rather in ordinary operational moments. A customer issue that circles through three senior people before anyone responds. A recruitment decision delayed because nobody is certain where approval sits. A management team that appears aligned in meetings while remaining structurally uncertain afterwards about what was actually decided.
Authority as a Design Choice
At some point in most businesses that successfully navigate growth, the founder’s relationship with authority does shift. It is not always a conscious shift, but it is a meaningful one. The realisation – sometimes gradual, sometimes prompted by a specific pressure point – is that the capacity of the business to function does not depend only on the founder’s capability. It depends on whether the organisational structure distributes enough decision-making capacity to allow the business to make good decisions without the founder as the essential mechanism.
This is not about stepping back or relinquishing control. It is something more precise. It is the recognition that decision rights, if left to emerge organically, will follow the path of least resistance – which, in a founder-led business, almost always means it accumulates at the centre. Designing it deliberately means deciding, over time, which decisions genuinely belong where, and who should carry them.
What changes when this is done well is less dramatic than it sounds. People stop waiting. Meetings produce conclusions that stick. The founder’s involvement in operational matters reduces, not because they have been excluded, but because people no longer need to escalate simply to establish who carries the call. The organisation develops a kind of operational confidence in the decisions that should not require senior intervention.
Businesses that develop this quality also appear to be clearer to people outside them. A prospective partner, investor, or acquirer looking at a business where authority is clearly distributed sees something quite different from one where everything flows through the founder. People outside the business notice this surprisingly quickly. They can usually tell whether decisions are genuinely distributed or whether everything still routes back to one individual. They can also tell whether the business can hold its shape under pressure, or during a period when the founder is absent or the leadership configuration changes.
That relationship between governance, decision architecture, and the transferable value of a business is rarely made explicit, but it is consistently present in businesses that are taken seriously by external parties.
The Decisions Nobody Realises They Are Waiting For
And yet, many growing businesses never fully make that transition.
Conversations continue. Meetings are held. Decisions appear, on the surface, to move through the business in the normal way. But beneath that surface, people are still reading signals – watching for cues about where important decisions truly sit, calibrating their own behaviour against the informal patterns they have learned over time.
Many of the delays inside growing businesses are not caused by resistance, or poor motivation, or a shortage of competence. They emerge because the organisational structure never fully resolved a deceptively simple question.
In many businesses, the structure continues functioning well enough for years. Until eventually the organisation reaches a moment where somebody assumes a decision belongs elsewhere, usually at the point where the business can least afford the uncertainty.
Which decisions truly belong to whom?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments