“What is settled by custom, though it be not good, yet at least it is fit.” – Francis Bacon, “Of Innovations”, Essays, 1625
A manager puts her head round the door on a Wednesday afternoon with a problem and a recommendation. She knows the customer, understands the numbers, and what she’s proposing sits comfortably within the authority she already has. She isn’t really asking, though, she’s telling, the way people tell an owner things, with a question mark left on the end out of habit. “Are you happy if we go ahead?” The owner listens for a minute or two and agrees.
Nothing has gone wrong. Yet when the same thing happens several times a week, it starts to look more like an owner bottleneck and less like sensible oversight.
A pricing exception came past on Monday. A supplier query landed on Tuesday. Earlier this week, two other managers wanted the owner’s view before committing to something they’d largely already decided. Each case was slightly different, and none seemed important enough on its own to turn into a larger conversation about authority.
The owner already knows some of these decisions shouldn’t need them any more. They’ve probably known it for months, filed under a heading that’s stayed unopened: worth sorting out properly once things calm down.
That’s often how an owner bottleneck survives – not through one dramatic refusal to hand anything over, but through a run of decisions each too small, too unusual, or too inconveniently timed to make an issue of.
The previous article has already looked at which results in this business still depend on someone turning up for them personally. It’s the same story the year’s numbers told earlier this month. This is what an owner bottleneck actually looks like, close up.
The Calmer Month That Never Comes
Ask most owners why a particular decision still needs their sign-off, and the answer is rarely evasive. There’s a renewal underway with a key customer. Someone senior is on leave. The new finance system only went live in July and people don’t fully trust it yet. Budget season starts next week, and nobody wants to hand over authority mid-cycle. None of these reasons is invented. Every one of them is true, in the way that most reasons for waiting are true, which is exactly why they work so well.
“Once things calm down” sounds like a timing decision, the sort of sensible, responsible thing a careful owner would say. What it actually describes is a business that keeps producing, without any particular desire to do so, the precise conditions that make the timing wrong. By the time the renewal closes, there’s a new appointment finding its feet. By the time that’s sorted, it’s practically December, and nobody hands over anything meaningful in December.
A handover planned for earlier in the year gets pushed past a large customer renewal, then past budget sign-off, and then past the point where anyone still expects it to happen on the date once discussed. A decision everyone privately agreed in June should move to someone else is still landing with the same person in September, for reasons that would each survive scrutiny on their own. Nothing dishonest has happened, and nobody has deliberately abandoned the idea. The circumstances simply never looked quite right.
That is what makes this different from an obvious refusal to delegate. The owner is often entirely sincere about wanting the business to depend less on them. The timing is the thing being negotiated.
Earlier this year I wrote about the founder transition that waits too long, and the gap that can open between recognising that a leadership transition is needed and actually making it. There is a version of the same problem inside individual decisions. The owner knows something should move, but every instance arrives with enough context to justify dealing with it in the familiar way one more time.
After a while, normal business becomes the reason the change cannot happen. That is a difficult condition to escape by waiting, because the quieter period being waited for is not really part of the plan, but an imagined gap in normal activity – a gap that, for most established businesses, never arrives on its own.
That waiting isn’t free either. It costs something in the quality of the decisions themselves, in how the people around the owner grow into bigger roles, and eventually in what the business is worth to someone else.
The Decisions That Still Have Your Name on Them
Say “too much still comes back to me” to most owners and they’ll agree in principle, then struggle to say exactly what “too much” contains. It helps to get specific. A pricing exception outside the normal range, one a commercial director has handled correctly a hundred times before, still arrives for a second signature. A customer concession needs a conversation, certainly, but not necessarily the owner’s decision on it specifically. Two experienced managers resolve a disagreement between themselves perfectly well, then bring the agreed answer upstairs anyway, as though it isn’t final until someone else has looked at it.
None of these, taken alone, looks like evidence of anything. Each can be justified in isolation: this customer is important, a manager is new, an exception is slightly unusual. The more revealing exercise isn’t examining any single decision. It’s what the whole collection looks like laid out together, once someone is honest enough to actually lay it out.
There’s a fair objection worth taking seriously here. An owner or chief executive is there to exercise judgement. A major acquisition, material borrowing, a fundamental change in direction or a commitment that exposes the business to significant risk may properly require involvement at the top. Certain external relationships may also carry history or consequences that make personal involvement sensible.
Research by John Graham, Campbell Harvey and Manju Puri, based on surveys of more than 1,000 CEOs and CFOs, found that executives did not delegate decision authority equally. Mergers and acquisitions were the decisions CEOs were least likely to share or delegate, while delegation generally increased as companies became larger or more complex. Their NBER paper on delegation of decision authority is useful here because it supports something experienced leaders already understand: retaining authority is not automatically a weakness. The nature of the decision matters.
The harder distinction is between decisions that still need your position and judgement, and those that need you because everyone has become accustomed to your involvement, and the difference can be surprisingly narrow. The same owner may quite properly be involved in negotiating a major financing arrangement on Tuesday, then unnecessarily approve a routine commercial exception on Wednesday. One demonstrates judgement appropriate to the role. The other may simply demonstrate history.
The broader problem of concentrated authority is something I explored in Founder Dependency: The Structural Limits of Leadership Attention. What interests me here is a narrower, more personal version of that same founder dependency, the smaller mechanism beneath it. Decision authority rarely stays concentrated because somebody made one clear call that it should. Often, it remains where it is because the individual decisions never quite move, as much from habit as anything else.
What Another Three Months Changes
Nothing catastrophic generally happens in the three months a decision keeps waiting. That’s rather the problem. Managers get a little more accustomed to checking first. Long-standing customers get a little more accustomed to asking for the owner by name. And the owner, seeing the same kind of question again and again, gets genuinely faster at resolving it, which has the effect of making the whole arrangement look more efficient rather than less. Fast decision-making feels like good management. Nobody stops to ask where the speed is actually coming from. A decision made in ten seconds because it’s the fourth like it this week isn’t necessarily a considered one. It’s a reflex, just looking like judgement.
The pattern, in other words, produces its own evidence in its favour, without anyone actively trying to build the case. A senior manager says “I thought I’d better check with you first,” though nobody actually instructed them to, because that’s simply what good practice has come to look like in this business. An owner returns from four days away to a small collection of decisions that technically belonged to someone else, held pending their return like post stacked by the front door.
None of this makes an eventual handover easier. It makes it harder, because the people around the owner aren’t learning a new responsibility when it finally comes. They’re unlearning an established route, and unlearning is slower and more uncomfortable than learning ever is. There’s a cost that shows up eventually, though rarely where anyone thinks to look for it first: owner dependency, accumulating one decision at a time. I looked at the organisational side of this in The Hidden Cost of Being the Final Decision Point, tracing how decisions can drift upwards through habit, uncertainty and escalation until one person becomes the final point almost by default.
A business that has hired genuinely capable people, yet still needs one person’s confirmation on most things that matter, isn’t getting the true value of the people it’s hired. Whatever looks transferable about the business on paper, the authority underneath it mostly isn’t, not while it still has to pass through one person before anything moves.
While The Evidence Is Still Fresh
Some changes in how authority sits in a business begin with a workshop, an org chart redrawn on a whiteboard, or a plan with a start date attached. Most don’t. They begin, if they begin at all, because a decision has just landed back on the owner’s desk that plainly had no need to be there, and this time it doesn’t get filed away as just another exception to think about later.
September is a useful month for this, not because the calendar says so, but because the evidence has built up. There’s almost certainly a specific decision from this week, still fresh enough to describe in detail, that should have stopped one desk earlier than it did, and the owner probably recognises exactly which one.
The right moment to do something about it turns out to look remarkably ordinary. No spare capacity suddenly appears out of the blue. The business doesn’t obligingly become less busy first, the way the story in the owner’s head always assumed it would. One familiar decision simply stops making the return trip. The business runs without the owner for one Wednesday afternoon, and nothing breaks.
There’s a strategic cost to holding back as well, and it’s easy to miss. Every decision one continues to hold unnecessarily consumes a little attention. Individually, hardly enough to notice. Collectively, they occupy space that might otherwise go to direction, trade-offs, difficult external questions and decision-making that genuinely does require the owner.
The cost of an owner bottleneck is not only that too much reaches the owner. It is also what the owner has less room to see because it does.
The Next Time It Comes Back
Nothing dramatic needs to happen for any of this to matter. The calendar stays full. The customer issue that felt urgent in August is still, in its smaller way, urgent now. Quarter-end hasn’t moved to a more convenient date, and it never will. The only difference, if there is one, is that the next time a familiar decision arrives at the desk, the owner might look at it slightly differently than they did the week before.
Perhaps it genuinely belongs there. Some decisions do, and knowing which ones takes more honesty than most owners give themselves credit for. Perhaps it doesn’t, it never really did, and has simply been arriving out of habit for long enough that nobody thought to ask.
Either way: the next time it arrives, with that question mark tacked loosely onto the end out of habit, does it still have a good reason to be there? Or has it simply found its way back often enough that nobody has thought to check?
If you enjoyed this article you can subscribe here to receive future articles.
—
0 Comments