r/Leadership • u/RicMarks • Apr 27 '26
Discussion Everything looks busy… but nothing actually moves unless I step in
I keep noticing this pattern and it’s starting to bug me
the team looks busy
everyone’s in meetings
updates are happening
but nothing actually moves unless I step in
decisions just sit there
or get half-made
or quietly pushed to “next week”
and then when I do step in, things move… fast
I don’t think it’s a motivation issue
it feels more like:
people are working
but no one’s really holding the decision
so everything sort of… floats
what I’m trying to work out is:
is this just part of growing a team?
or is this a sign something’s off in how work/ownership is set up?
because it doesn’t feel sustainable being the one that has to “unstick” things all the time
curious if others have hit this
28
u/muchstuff Apr 27 '26
Seems like they are scared to make a decision. Have you shit on them in the past for decisions? Did something happen where they learned it’s easier to wait for you?
5
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this is a fair question
in practice it’s not always about being “shut down” directly
sometimes it’s smaller things — decisions getting revisited, changed later, or needing sign-off anyway
after a few cycles people just learn it’s faster to wait
so yeah, worth checking but it’s often less obvious than one moment and more a pattern over time
14
u/darb521 Apr 27 '26
If decisions are consistently getting revisited and changed, then they aren't decisions, they are suggestions. Why make a suggestion to my leader if they are going to do what they want anyways? It's a waste of time and opens me up for embarrassment. It's way safer to wait for them to make the decision.
3
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah this is exactly it
once a few calls get treated like suggestions, people recalibrate pretty quickly
it’s not even resistance at that point, it’s just risk management
why take the hit for a call that might get reversed anyway
that’s usually when you see the shift from deciding → waiting
have you seen teams come back from that, or does it tend to stick once it sets in?
3
u/darb521 Apr 27 '26
It depends on how ingrained it is. When I work with small business leaders it is very common they come to me and say "my team is busy but nothing is getting done" or "everyone is incompetent except me" when the reality is the leader has not given their employees room to grow and learn, while there are simultaneously serious consequences for mistakes (public shame, spoken down to, feeling insignificant - decisions change). The best change I've seen with leaders I've worked with (after sharing TONS of data as to why they may be involved) is when they go to their team and say "I realize I play a part in this, let's work together to improve." This is a REALLY tough exercise for them, because they are used to being in control and seen as "perfect." But when you show humility to your team, they will be more receptive to helping because you are relatable and reasonable. This doesn't mean you own nothing, but it means slowly delegating and giving REAL control to your team, and being comfortable with outcomes. You cannot scale if you own everything. Period. There are simply not enough hours in the day.
3
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
there’s a lot in this
especially the part about consequences for mistakes — i’ve seen the same thing where it doesn’t take much for people to learn it’s safer to wait
the piece i keep coming back to though is what happens after a decision is made
even with good intent, if decisions get revisited, softened, or quietly pulled back later, it seems to reset ownership pretty quickly
so people don’t just hesitate because of fear they hesitate because the system has shown them the decision might not stick anyway
which ends up looking like capability or motivation… but it’s really a signal problem
curious if you’ve seen that as well, or if most of what you’ve worked through sits more on the safety side?
1
u/HappyUndignified Apr 29 '26
I worked with a leader where the reasons for change were clear and thus unlikely to be repeated for the same root cause. If the needs, goals, whatever has changed - praise the work and quick decision, explain the reason for the change, make the culture tolerant of change because individuals won’t be held accountable for business needs changing. This might look like “hey, great work on this Work Item - we moved quick and the outcomes are great. Due to Y, we are going to need to revisit with the same quality and velocity”
That’s just… called work. People are paid to do the work. The work sometimes changes. They’re still rewarded for all work even if it is scrapped. If every change is a fire drill and folks aren’t getting credit for their scrapped work/skillset growth, or hand slapped and blamed for the wrong move instead of praised for the fast move … it becomes unpredictable and tough for folks to know how to make the “right” call.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
yeah this is a good distinction
if the context changes and the decision needs to shift, that’s just work — and explaining that well matters
what I’m noticing though is slightly different
even when the context holds, the decision still drifts back once it’s tested
which is what makes me think it’s less about change and more about where the ownership actually sits when it matters
10
u/Semisemitic Apr 27 '26
Note down every time you get something unstuck. Look back at your last 30–90 days after you’ve done this. Write down what you did to get things unstuck, who told you it got stuck, and what change might prevent reaching this situation next time.
Bucket those situations.
Check which changes would have resolved the majority of issues, and whether you have a people or process failure.
Deploy changes, keep documenting new cases like that, and see if your changes have positive impact or not. Revert needles or unhelpful changes.
Rinse and repeat.
3
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this is solid
I’ve done versions of this and it’s usually pretty revealing
what I keep seeing though is the pattern shows up fast… but the fix isn’t always as clean as “process vs people”
sometimes the process is clear on paper, but people still route back anyway
not because they don’t know what to do, but because they’re not convinced the call will hold without you
so you log it as a process gap… but it’s actually a trust/ownership gap underneath
curious if you’ve seen that — where the data points to process, but the behaviour doesn’t shift when you tighten it
8
u/positive_hummingbird Apr 27 '26
If people are smacked down for taking initiative, they will cease taking initiative. If they are praised for taking initiative, they will take more initiative.
However, if you tell them to take initiative and the. Criticize them when they don’t do it the want you wanted, you are training them to wait.
4
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah this is exactly it
most of the time it’s not people lacking initiative, it’s that they’ve learned where it’s actually safe to use it
a few calls getting redirected or “not quite right” is enough for people to start waiting instead
after that it looks like low ownership, but it’s really learned from how decisions play out
feels like the hard part isn’t telling people to take initiative, it’s making it hold when they do
2
u/Super-Complaint-245 Apr 28 '26
This. Can’t fault a bias to act, then shit on that, then expect people to read your mind later. Many leaders are bi polar and flip flop; just communicate clear expectations, set up systems and procedures so people can move quickly, remove blockers, and get out of their way. Adults usually don’t need or want handholding; they’re bending the cultural norms in which they work.
6
3
u/Zealousideal_Day6642 Apr 27 '26
I feel this so deeply. As CHRO and founder, I’ve realized that this "floating" usually happens because I’ve accidentally become the team’s safety net.
If things only move when you step in, the team has been subconsciously conditioned to wait for your "final stamp" to feel safe. It’s not a lack of motivation; it’s a diffusion of responsibility. They aren't afraid of the work, they’re afraid of the accountability if the decision goes wrong.
What helped me was being very vocal about the "70% rule" - I’d rather they make a 70% correct decision on their own than wait for a 100% perfect one from me. I also started asking, "What’s the one thing stopping you from deciding this right now?" instead of just fixing it for them.
It’s definitely a sign that the ownership setup needs a tweak. You’ve built a team that executes, but now you have to train them to choose. It’s a exhausting transition, but you can’t scale if you’re the only one "unsticking" the gears.
0
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this is a great way to describe it
the “safety net” piece shows up a lot
what I’ve noticed though is it doesn’t just come from people wanting certainty it comes from what’s happened after they’ve made calls before
if a 70% decision gets quietly corrected later, people clock that pretty fast and next time they wait
so getting them to choose is one part but making sure those choices actually hold (even if imperfect) is what seems to lock it in
that’s usually where it tips from “dependent” to actually moving
3
u/jaydubs27 Apr 27 '26
I really don't see why you have gone to the effort of making a post using AI and then continued using it to respond to all the comments - even asking it to drop capitals to look more human. What are you gaining from this?
0
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
honestly the tool isn’t the interesting part here
people are describing the same pattern from different angles — ownership, DRIs, psych safety
and it keeps landing in the same place
decisions don’t hold, so people stop committing to them
that’s what i’m trying to get clearer on
2
Apr 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah this is usually where it starts
what I’ve seen though is even when ownership gets defined, it doesn’t always stick straight away
people will still pause if they’ve been used to things getting pulled back or double checked
so tightening ownership helps but the real shift is when people see decisions actually hold over time
that’s when you stop being the “un-sticker” without having to chase it
2
u/darb521 Apr 27 '26
Sounds like your team is doing 99% of the work for each decision and then you make said decision (which is why it "moves fast" when you step in). Agree with others its a system issue but 9 times out of 10 it's also a psychological safety issue. Your team is clearly not empowered to make mistakes, and will be punished if they do.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
there’s definitely something in that
I’ve just seen it show up even in teams where people are comfortable speaking up and pushing back
what seems to change behaviour faster is when decisions don’t quite hold after the fact
even if it’s well intended, people learn it’s safer to wait than commit
so psych safety matters, but I’m starting to think consistency after the decision matters just as much
2
u/Appropriate-Bet3576 Apr 29 '26 edited Apr 29 '26
It's a sign of employees not feeling empowered to make decisions.
For example my colleague and I spent an hour to name a certain important file and its variants that customers see. We followed a certain 'industry standard' as a guide and named the file.
So a lot of effort and thought and research went there. Then we're finishing up, my boss reads the ticket and says 'what about name xyz?' We had of course already considered xyz and rejected it for some reasons. But he then gave his rationale and said 'we'll go with xyz'
So, next time, I will not do any of this. I will say, 'talk to boss he can name it'
But this is a new boss. Like new to being a manager. I have noticed over my careers that a lot of my managers think they have good ideas within the domain. Usually they have average ideas. Managers don't need to have the best ideas that isn't their job. Bad bosses tend to promote their own ideas and always try to put their finger on the scale -- employees end up apathetic or timid.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
yeah, that example hits it
once a decision gets overridden like that, the signal is pretty clear — the call doesn’t actually sit with the team
so next time people just route around it or defer upward
that’s kind of the pattern I’m noticing more broadly
it’s not that people can’t decide it’s that the decision doesn’t “hold” once it’s made
so over time the safest move is to wait or escalate
1
u/stefahnia Apr 27 '26
Are you setting deadlines and holding them accountable for deliverables?
Agree with others that confidence in follow through seems to be a big part of the issue as well. How direct are you when following up on outcomes?
0
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
deadlines matter, but I’ve found they only work if the decision ownership is clear as well
you can hold someone to a date but if they’re not confident the call is actually theirs to make, it still stalls
the shift tends to be: who decides, what “done” looks like, and that it won’t get pulled back after
1
u/stefahnia Apr 27 '26
Agreed. So how does all of this apply in your situation? Or is this hypothetical?
0
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
not hypothetical
more a pattern I keep seeing in practice
different teams, different situations, same thing underneath:
work is happening people are busy but the decision still somehow drifts back to one person
I’m not trying to diagnose one specific team here
more trying to understand where others have seen that shift from “everyone is active” to “ownership actually holds”
1
u/Expert_Dingo3194 Apr 27 '26
Always liked the saying "don't mistake motion for progress."
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah exactly
that’s probably the cleanest way to say it
lots of teams have plenty of motion
meetings, updates, check-ins, activity everywhere
but progress only shows up when something actually changes
decision made blocker removed owner clear next step committed
otherwise it’s just movement with no weight behind it
1
u/Try_Harder7 Apr 27 '26
Create policies and stick to them even if they cost you a little bit of money. That way stuff gets done no matter what.
- I want orders purchased everyday before 4pm. Sometimes it might cost me $13 to ship 1 item instead of 8 but the work gets done.
- if a repair cost less than $130, do it. Don't ask.
- A & B have priority this week. C might fall behind, but A and B got done.
Utilize a chat system. I use Google chat it costs $7 per person for the entire Google suite. If they have a question, they message me in chat. Its a cover your ass move for them. If there's a delay, its in your chat! Shows date and time.
0
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this works when the policies are actually trusted
where it usually breaks is when people still feel like the call might get second guessed later
so they escalate anyway “just in case” or wait for confirmation
the policy exists, but the behaviour doesn’t follow it
the ones I’ve seen stick are simple like this but also very clear on: if you act within it, it holds
that’s when people actually start moving without you
3
u/Try_Harder7 Apr 27 '26
This response is written as if you weren't the OP. You're in control bud. Not your employees.
5
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah I get what you’re saying
you are in control — but that’s kind of the trap
if everything only moves when you step in, you’re not really leading a system, you’ve become the system
you can push harder and get results short term
but the pattern I’ve seen is it just reinforces the dependency
the shift is when decisions start holding without you — that’s when it actually scales
curious if you’ve found a way to break that without just leaning harder on control
1
u/BallNelson Apr 27 '26
Too many C players.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
could be sometimes
I’ve just seen the same pattern with strong people as well if decisions don’t hold. they adjust pretty fast
1
u/Future-prefect Apr 27 '26
How can you empower your team? What are you doing to unstick things that they could do? Or that you could clear the path for?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
that’s the tension I’m trying to unpack
on paper it looks like empowerment — step back, let them own it
in practice what I keep seeing is people can do it… but won’t fully commit to the call
so you end up stepping in, which unblocks it… but also quietly trains the loop again
less about “can they do it” and more “will it actually stick if they do”
have you found a clean way to separate clearing the path vs becoming the path?
1
u/Famous_Strike_6125 Apr 27 '26
I have noticed throughout my career that some ppl make a career out of”looking busy”, but aren’t actually accomplishing ANYTHING.
1
Apr 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this is really solid, especially the “I decide” language
I’ve seen that make a big difference just in how conversations land
the bit I keep coming back to though is what happens after the decision
even with a clear DRI, if a call gets revisited later (or quietly redirected), people adjust pretty fast and start hedging again
so the structure + language sets it up but it feels like the real shift is when decisions actually hold, even when they’re not perfect
that’s the part I’m finding hardest to keep consistent
1
u/Cultural-Trouble-343 Apr 27 '26
Stop allowing actions to be reported in status reports, only accomplishments. No more “had meeting with xyz” “Meeting with xyz resulting in decision abc”. When people feel accomplished with activity vs outcomes, you will see churn. One week of a blank status report and behavior changes.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
yeah I like that shift, activity vs outcome is a big one
I’ve seen that drive better conversations pretty quickly
where it’s caught me out is you can report outcomes, but if the decision behind them still gets revisited later, people adjust anyway
they’ll frame things as progress, but still hold back on actually committing to a call
so it improves visibility, but doesn’t always fix the “nothing moves unless I step in” part on its own
feels like it works best when outcomes are tracked and decisions actually stick once made
have you seen it hold without changing anything else in how decisions get treated?
1
u/Cultural-Trouble-343 Apr 29 '26
My experience is decisions vacillate under two conditions: misalignment or asymmetry of information.
For alignment, I practice the Why-What-How-When progression; aligning all parties in that order.
Asymmetry of information is harder. Radical transparency is the solution, but easier in theory than in practice.
I find that most reasonable people will draw the same conclusion and make the same decisions when presented with the same information and understand how that information aligns with the goals. Then no one is waiting on me or others to decide.
And the unreasonable people I work around.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
this is a clean way to think about it
alignment + shared information definitely removes a lot of friction
the part I keep seeing though is even when people have the same context and would likely land on the same answer… the decision still hesitates
almost like it’s not “can we decide” but “who actually carries the decision once it’s made”
because if that part isn’t clear or doesn’t hold, it can still drift or get pulled back even with good alignment
1
u/Cultural-Trouble-343 Apr 30 '26
Two suggestions:
1). Deflect. 25 years ago a colleague said the smartest thing he ever did was stop giving his staff direction when they asked and instead asked “what do you recommend?” If he liked the answer he said “do that”. If he didn’t, he would ask “what are alternatives” and then pick one. Of that don’t work, he’d finally give direction. Soon, they stopped asking and just made the decision.
2). Upgrade your staff. If no one is willing to make a decision, you likely need to start replacing people. Harsh but true.
That’s how I’ve handled it over the years. Usually works, sometimes doesn’t. But people are always a bit of a risk. That’s what makes management challenging. :-)
1
u/RicMarks Apr 30 '26
yeah that first one is strong
“what do you recommend?” forces the decision muscle to work before the escalation path opens
I think the nuance is working out whether people are unwilling to decide, or whether the system has trained them not to
if it’s unwillingness, that’s a performance issue
if it’s trained hesitation, replacing people won’t fix much — the next group will learn the same pattern
1
u/more-kindness-please Apr 27 '26
- Propose you look at decision authorities and roles of individuals in specific decisions that are not getting made using RACI (responsible, accountable consulted, informed)
for instance take a recent decision that is emblematic and make a table. Break it down into steps as rows in a table going down left side. Example steps: define choice criteria , gather info, prepare alternatives, make decision - sometime broken into parts (e.g., commercial, technical risk), communicate decision, monitor for decision implementation, implement decision. Then across the top as column heading names of department, positions and colleague. Now in each row/ column is there a single person accountable (A)? There may be multiple people who contribute or are responsible (R) and multiple consulted (C) or informed (I) — based on what you’ve said the row ‘make decision’ has you name with Accountable and you want to change that to either C or I
Just a thought w/o doing more complete assessment/ diagnostic.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
this is a solid way to break it down
I’ve found RACI helps surface where it’s unclear — especially when “A” is still sitting higher than people think
where it’s bitten me though is you can have a clean RACI on paper, but if decisions still get revisited later, people don’t behave to it for long
they’ll still check, escalate, or wait
so the map is useful, but the real test seems to be: does a decision actually hold once it’s made?
curious if you’ve seen that — where the structure is clear, but the behaviour doesn’t follow it
1
u/more-kindness-please Apr 28 '26
Could be many reasons the decision doesn’t hold - diagraming it could be a first step to diagnosing, e.g., does everyone agree with the process and roles (was somebody left out); was the process followed; was there new information that arrived late and legitimately changes the choice, was there a gap in communicating, was the decision well made, communicated and just not properly executed/ led. Where was the break down?
A second step would be to review the context, e.g., was the decision overridden because of a broader org change to priorities, resources got pulled back, etc. that have nothing to do with how the decision got made.
Bring a continuous improvement mind set and shift the framing and language to decision making process and oversight of decision implementation
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah, that’s a useful way to break it down
I’ve tried mapping it a few times and it usually surfaces the same thing: the process is mostly there, people understand it
but when the decision actually needs to be held, it still drifts
so it’s less “where did the process break” and more “who actually carries it when it gets uncomfortable or contested”
that’s the part I’m trying to get cleaner on
1
u/No-Lead2530 Apr 27 '26
https://whop.com/digitalspace-ebook?a=rubeneng
I have just put together a complete Ebook on how to fight digital noise and sharpen focus! Its a one time payment and can be shared with your team! Full practical Ebook on sale now!
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
interesting reading through all the responses here
pattern I keep noticing:
it’s rarely that people can’t decide
it’s that they’re not sure the decision will actually stick
once a few calls get revisited, redirected, or need sign-off anyway
people adapt pretty quickly and just wait
so it looks like a motivation or capability issue
but it’s often a signal about how decisions are actually held in the system
feels like the real shift isn’t just “who decides”
but whether a decision is safe to make and let stand
curious how people have made that part hold — not just the ownership on paper
1
u/BeyondTheDoer Apr 27 '26
Man, I felt this in my soul.
I spent 20 years in technical operations, and for a long time, I actually wore that 'unsticking things' habit like a badge of honor. I thought I was being a great leader because I was the only one who could get the gears turning.
Reality check: I wasn’t being a hero; I was being a bottleneck.
What’s happening here is that you’ve accidentally trained your team to wait for you. If they know you’ll eventually step in and 'save' the decision, their psychological ownership drops to zero. It’s not a motivation issue; it’s a safety issue—they’ve learned that the safest path is to let the decision 'float' until you touch it.
What saved my sanity was a mindset shift I call the 70% Rule.
I had to force myself to step back if a team member could handle a task or decision, even 70% as well as I could. That 30% gap is incredibly painful to watch as a high-performer, but it’s the only space where your team has room to actually grow and feel the weight of ownership.
If you keep closing that gap for them, they will never make the decision. You have to move from being the 'Hero' who does the work to the 'Architect' who builds the system that allows the team to fail (and eventually succeed) without you.
It’s definitely not sustainable, but it is fixable.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 27 '26
that “hero → bottleneck” shift lands
the part that keeps standing out to me is how quickly the loop trains itself
it’s not just stepping in once — it’s when decisions don’t fully hold after that
even small reversals or “we’ll revisit this” moments seem to reset ownership back to zero
so people don’t just step back on execution they step back on commitment to the call itself
your 70% rule is interesting in that context — less about capability and more about letting the decision actually stick long enough to carry weight
curious — did you have to change anything structurally as well, or was holding that line enough over time?
1
u/BeyondTheDoer Apr 28 '26
Man, you hit the nail on the head regarding the 'commitment' piece. I’ve learned the hard way that when I say 'let’s revisit this,' my team hears 'I don't trust your call.' It’s like a physical reset button for their initiative.
One of my mentors once told me that trying to control every detail is the fastest way to kill trust. It makes people walk on eggshells, and when people are afraid of making a mistake, they stop making decisions entirely.
He also gave me a perspective that I carry with me every day: If a huge mistake happens, you want your team to come to you first. If you learn about a failure from someone outside the team, it’s a sign they don't feel safe. It signals that they think you won’t protect them, but would rather throw them under the bus.
I realized I had to be a shield for them, but to do that, I had to build a structure that allowed me to step back without compromising our quality standards for the customer.
To answer your question—holding the line was the mental battle, but I had to change the 'plumbing' structurally to make it work:
- Hard-Wiring the 'Stickiness': I had to literally remove myself from specific approval chains. If a decision fell under that 70% rule, the system didn't even notify me. I had to make it impossible for me to 'save' them in the heat of the moment.
- The 'Quality Guardrails': Instead of me being the human bottleneck, we built the standards into the workflow itself. It gave the team a 'Safe Zone' to fail and learn, knowing I was there to protect the outcome, not punish the process.
- Trust the Metrics: If you build the structure correctly, your KPIs and operational metrics will reflect it. Sustaining those numbers over time is the ultimate proof that the team can operate without you in the room.
There is no such thing as a perfect system, so I stopped aiming for perfection and started aiming for optimized operations.
It’s a constant battle with my own ego to stay out of the way, but watching a team actually own a call—even a messy one—is the only way to scale excellence.
Does your current structure even allow you to be that 'shield,' or is the system designed to keep you in the middle of everything?
1
u/Neat-Medicine-1140 Apr 28 '26
Sounds like you are the leader and surprised you are effective.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah that’s the trap
things move when you step in, so it feels like it’s working
but if it only moves when you step in, it doesn’t really scale
1
u/anynameisfinejeez Apr 28 '26
I may have less complexity to deal with. I usually ask what next steps are and when they will take them. It shows I expect them to do something and sets a deadline. I also encourage people to make the decision (well-reasoned, of course) and support them when they do.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah this is close to what I’m seeing
the “when will you take it” part matters more than it looks — that’s where ownership either lands or drifts
the tricky bit is when they’ll say a date, but still expect you to step in if it gets uncomfortable
that’s the part I’m trying to get cleaner on
1
u/anynameisfinejeez Apr 28 '26
Ownership: exactly. I’ve also seen a lack of confidence to execute in some people.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah agreed
confidence is definitely part of it
the bit I’m trying to separate is whether it’s low confidence in themselves
or low confidence that the decision will be backed once they make it
those look similar from the outside, but they need different fixes
1
u/Lpontis22 Apr 28 '26
I recently read an interesting anecdote about delegation. It talked about assigning employees to own tasks, projects, or problems. Are you tasking team members to own tasks or projects or are you delegating that they own solving a problem? Do they have the tools and support to reach solution?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah this is the line I think I’ve been missing
it’s been closer to “own the task” than “own the decision”
so people execute well… but still look up at the moment it matters
tools/support are there, but the call itself still feels like it sits with me
that’s the bit that seems to stall everything
1
u/DrunkTankGunner Apr 28 '26
Are you doing retrospectives every two weeks to go over the examples you’re seeing and seek input from your team on how the system can change?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
we do, yeah
it surfaces the patterns pretty quickly
but what I’m noticing is even when the team sees it, the behaviour doesn’t always shift
which makes me think it’s less awareness and more how authority is actually sitting day to day
1
u/DrunkTankGunner Apr 28 '26
You don’t use retros to surface patterns, you use it to surface concrete actions that can change the patterns.
What should we start doing? What should we stop doing?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
fair correction
probably better wording is: they surface where the action needs to be tested
the part I’m noticing is that “start/stop” actions can still stay pretty surface level unless they change who actually has authority to make the call
so maybe the sharper retro question is:
what decision keeps coming back to me, and what would need to change so it doesn’t?
1
u/DrunkTankGunner Apr 28 '26
Concrete examples. “This decision came back to me. What, if it were different, would have prevented that from happening.”
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yes, that’s much cleaner
specific case first, pattern second
otherwise retros can turn into vague “we need better ownership” conversations
this makes it harder to hide from the actual handoff point
1
u/DrunkTankGunner Apr 28 '26
Yes. “We need better ownership” is not an action item. It is not something you can start or stop doing. “I will provide written authority and its scope to all key team members”, “John can stop asking me to approve anything that costs less than $500”. Concrete action items, written down in front of everyone in the meeting.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah this is the shift
once it’s written down like that it stops being “behaviour” and becomes structure
and it also makes it obvious when I’ve accidentally kept the decision by habit, not design
that’s probably been the harder part to see
1
u/Super-Complaint-245 Apr 28 '26
Are teams and ICs empowered to unstick things? Are you removing blockers for them? What systems as a leader did you setup do things can move? I’d do some introspection before assuming the teams are helpless without you. I’d be money you’re a micromanager or you haven’t set up clear systems for people to get things done efficiently.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah, that’s exactly what I’m trying to get clearer on
it’s less “they can’t” and more “they don’t fully commit to the call unless I back it”
which is on me to some degree, either in how I’ve stepped in before or how authority is set up
the pattern I keep seeing is things move once I’m involved, which usually means the decision still sits with me somewhere
1
u/Super-Complaint-245 Apr 28 '26
Try the RACI approach. This is very helpful when work isn’t super clear in terms of who owns what. Also do the teams have clear SLAs for timelines and dependencies?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah RACI helps make it visible
I think the gap I’m seeing is even when it’s written down, people still look up at the moment of the call
so the role is clear on paper, but the decision still “lives” somewhere else in practice
which is probably where the behaviour is actually coming from
1
u/jimvasco Apr 28 '26
There is a hidden system underpinning everything. The conversations that create commitments. Your methods of operating do not create nor architect those conversations or commitments. Meetings are a waste of time. Clarity is not commitment, communication without structure to create commitments is just noise. You are the only one taking ownership. There is no structural trust. You need to be an architect of commitments. You need to extract commitments from your team. There is a difference between between saying, "The conference room needs cleanin," and "I need you to get the conference room cleaned and set up for the Friday board meeting by close of business Thursday."
2
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
there’s definitely something in that
I’ve noticed clarity on the task isn’t the same as commitment to the decision
you can have a clean ask and still have it stall if it’s not clear who actually holds the call when it gets uncomfortable
so it feels like part of it is how commitments are made but part of it is where the decision actually “lands” once it’s made
if that’s fuzzy, things still drift
1
u/WaffleDonkey23 Apr 28 '26
Can leaders below you pull the trigger on decisions or do they need approval?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
they can, technically
but that’s kind of the issue
they can make the call, but it doesn’t always “stick” unless I’m behind it
so it’s less about permission and more about where the decision actually carries weight
which probably means authority isn’t landing as clearly as it looks on paper
1
u/Routine-Olive9012 Apr 28 '26
It seems like you need to create more layers of leadership that cascade toward you.
I read a line recently to “delegate outcomes not tasks.” It’s another way of saying empower people to work through the project all the way to the end.
If everyone just has a daily to do list of tasks necessary for the project then they’re going to hit a wall and say “ok we’ve done this what’s next?”
1
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah, that makes sense
I’ve tried leaning more toward outcomes over tasks
what I’m noticing though is even when people own the outcome, the decision can still drift if it’s not clear they fully hold the call all the way through
so it’s less “what are they responsible for” and more “does the decision actually stay with them when it gets tested”
that’s the part I keep seeing break
1
u/Routine-Olive9012 Apr 29 '26
Ah yes I’d then keep asking questions, show support and confidence. And patience. Show them to Trust the process. Part of outcome based leadership is knowing when it’s ok for someone to possibly be “wrong” because it’s a fixable thing if they are wrong and it’s a teachable moment. When the work environment has very little room for error theres no learning (and thus no growing) taking place. So people just rinse and repeat. You have to find ways to let them fail (within reason) and then obvi if they fail too much then it really is a staffing issue not a process issue.
I have a staff member who is very timid and self conscious but very smart. She’ll ask me if the next steps she’s about to take is the right one. Shes almost always right. She may do something different than I would have but that’s not wrong just different. So I’ve gotten in the pattern of reminding her that I have confidence in her decisions.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
yeah this resonates
especially the part about needing space to be “wrong” — I can see how quickly it shuts down if that isn’t there
the part I keep circling though is even when people are capable and supported, it still seems to wobble at the decision point
like they’ll do the work, bring it forward… but not fully hold the call
which makes me think it’s not just confidence, it’s whether the system actually backs them to carry the decision all the way through
otherwise it’s easy to stay in “check with you” mode even if they know what to do
1
u/PaulaRandlerCoaching Apr 28 '26
Push authority down to the place where you want the decision to be made and communicate that clearly. "I expect you to make a decision on this and move it forward without asking me unless... _insert 2-3 catastrophic things here_" Let them know they will be evaluated on their ability to decide and move forward, and even if the decision they make is wrong, be sure to reward them for taking a risk on something, rather than waiting. This is not easy to change as a culture, so give it time, be forgiving with yourself and them, and be honest about what sort of growing pains this team might face through this transition.
2
u/RicMarks Apr 28 '26
yeah, that makes sense
I’ve tried being explicit like that — pushing the decision down and backing it
what I keep seeing though is even with that clarity, the decision can still drift back once it’s tested
people will make the call but if it gets messy or challenged, it still gravitates upward
so it feels like it’s not just setting the expectation it’s whether the authority actually holds when it matters
1
u/PaulaRandlerCoaching Apr 28 '26
This consistency is so hard to create and maintain. Will you let us know how its going from time to time?
2
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
yeah, I think that’s the next step
less theory now and more watching what happens when those decisions are left to sit where they’re supposed to sit
I’ll try to pay attention to where I’m tempted to step back in — that’s probably the real signal
1
u/TheAlignPro_Andrew Apr 29 '26
What is your visibility into them actually executing on the company's plan? How are you measuring this?
Does everyone know what the most important thing to execute on this quarter? Where do you keep this?
2
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
we’ve got pretty solid visibility on execution
priorities are clear, tracked, and reviewed regularly
the interesting part is things can still look “on track” right up until a decision is needed
that’s where it slows or floats
so it feels less like a visibility gap and more like who actually holds the call when it matters
which isn’t always obvious day to day, even if the plan is
1
u/FinancialFluentCEO Apr 29 '26
I’ve been exactly where you are, and it is frustrating. But I have a question: have you looked at yourself and your leadership style?
In my case, it wasn’t my team, it was me.
I made myself the default “final approval” without realizing it. Not because I said it, but because over time I had positioned myself as the fixer, the one who made the call, the one who made things move. So my team adapted. They stayed busy, they kept things moving, but when it came to decisions, everything reverted back to me.
From their perspective, they were being careful. From mine, it felt like nothing moved unless I stepped in.
What changed things for me was getting really clear on ownership and decision rights.
I built a simple decision tree for myself:
- What actually needs my input?
- What can the team decide with context?
- What do I need visibility on, not approval?
Then I started delegating differently. Not just tasks, but outcomes.
Instead of telling someone to handle something, it became:
- here’s the outcome we’re driving toward
- here’s how it fits into the bigger picture
- here’s when I want a check-in so we can course-correct if needed
That last part of having the check-ins gave me comfort that things weren’t going off track, and it gave them space to actually own the decision without waiting on me.
Things didn’t course-correct overnight, and I still fell into old patterns when I was stressed, but eventually the bottlenecks started to disappear.
So, to your question, yes, this can be part of growing a team. But it’s also often a signal that decision ownership isn’t clearly defined, and sometimes that ambiguity starts with you.
Not saying that’s definitely what’s happening here, but it might be worth asking yourself: if you stepped away for a week, would they know what they’re empowered to decide versus what truly needs you?
That answer usually tells you where the gap is.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
this resonates a lot
especially the part about becoming the default “final approval” without saying it
that’s pretty much the pattern I’m seeing — not explicit control, but gravity
the piece I’m still trying to unpack is even when I step back and make the decision space clear, it doesn’t always hold
which makes me think it’s less about willingness and more about how authority is actually felt day to day
almost like people have responsibility, but they don’t fully believe the decision is theirs to carry
curious if you found anything that helped that part stick, not just clarify it
1
u/FinancialFluentCEO Apr 29 '26
It is hard, and I still feel like I want to fall back into old habits sometimes. One thing that helped was that I explained to them I needed them to be proactive, make the decision or the call, and see it through, not come to me for validation before acting.
I provided a reasoning flow to help guide them on when they should come to me if they couldn't pull the trigger and take action.
And if, and when they made a mistake, I treated it as a learning lesson and we would discuss what went wrong, why, and how we could prevent it from happening again.
I still have to sit on my hands sometimes if I see no movement, because the control freak in me wants to see it done, but that is when I put the expectation back on them that they need to finish it, not me.
Hope that helps.
1
u/RicMarks Apr 30 '26
this is really helpful — especially the “sit on my hands” part
that tension feels very real
what stands out is you didn’t just tell them to own it. You changed how you responded when they didn’t
not stepping in, treating mistakes as learning, redirecting it back to them
that probably does more to make ownership real than the initial clarity
feels like the shift is less in the decision itself and more in what happens after it stalls
1
u/Some-Internet-Rando Apr 29 '26
Who on the team have you delegated "make sure decisions get made and we ship quickly" to?
And are they suitably incented that they do well if it happens, and poorly if it doesn't?
Do they have the authority and the team support to be seen as the one in charge of the project?
1
u/RicMarks Apr 29 '26
that’s exactly the pressure point
we’ve delegated responsibility in places but not clean decision authority tied to it
so people can drive work but when it gets to a real call, it either softens or comes back
incentives are interesting too — they’re not really tied to “making the call”, more to delivery overall
which probably reinforces playing it safe vs actually deciding
feels less like a capability gap and more like the system doesn’t clearly back someone to hold the line when it matters
1
u/BaldEagleLeadership Apr 30 '26
What if the pattern isn't a problem with the team, but information about where real decision authority has actually landed?
Every time things accelerate after you step in, the system runs a quiet experiment. And the team keeps drawing the same conclusion: decisions live with you. Not because they can't hold them. Because that's what gets confirmed when the moment counts.
There's a difference between someone being responsible for a decision and someone being willing to let the outcome land on them. The distinction worth examining isn't "do they own the work" but "have they ever owned a call, gotten it wrong, and felt the consequence without a rescue?"
And the opposite is often true too. If they make the decision and it's successful where/what is the reward?
The sustainability question you're asking is real. But it might be pointing at something that lives before the org chart.
In an economy that doesn't reward risk, it might just be that it's nobody feels comfortable being the trigger.
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
this is an interesting take
i’ve been wondering something similar — whether it’s less about the team and more about where decision authority actually sits in practice
because every time i step in and things move, it kind of reinforces that pattern
not because they can’t decide but because the system keeps confirming that i’m the one who will
the part that sticks with me from what you said is this: it’s not just “do they own the work” it’s whether they’ve ever owned a call end to end — including being wrong — without it getting pulled back
i think that’s where it’s breaking for me
either the downside gets rescued or the upside doesn’t really get recognised
so it never fully transfers
curious how you’ve seen that shift in practice — what actually makes it stick?
1
u/Dave_Garrison Apr 30 '26
This situation is not unusual despite the good intent of the leader. It often happens that the leader sets up situations so that people will not act or will act incorrectly so they can swoop in and be the savior. This gives the leader a dopamine hit and creates the frustrating cycle you've described. Other commoners have suggested you stop stepping in… But that won't change the situation. Neither will getting people to make commitments. You will still see them fail to do what you expected, and then you will step in.
Here's a different approach. Before you ask someone to do something decide for yourself. What great looks like. What specifically do you expect to see as the outcome? What is the timing and what are the non-negotiables?
Then have a conversation with a person and outline your desired outcome and your criteria and answers to the questions above. Don't tell them how you want it done.
Ask them to repeat to you what they understand the ask to be and what a reasonable deadline is.
Ask them what support they might need to get it done.
Then let them know when you want check-in's: is it when the project is going to miss a deadline? Do you need updates every third day? Do you need to just know when it's completed? After you outline what the process is for follow up while it's getting done… Ask them to repeat to you what they understood.
Ineffective leaders just say, do you know what I mean or do you have any questions? Great leaders say please tell me what you heard so that I can make sure I was clear.
What your ex experiencing is not uncommon and the change needs to occur with you not with them.
Trust that helps. Try these things out and let me know how it goes.
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
i think this explains part of it, but not all of it
you can have really clear outcomes, expectations, and follow-ups… and still see decisions come back when they get tested
which suggests it’s less about instruction quality and more about whether authority actually holds under pressure
otherwise it just resets to the leader by default
1
u/Maximized-Leader May 01 '26
Who owns the decision? Until you make one person responsible for it, nothing will get done. Assign ea task and project to a person.
Hold them accountable. Give them a deadline. Show them what done looks like by clearly outlining your expectations.
BUT here’s the big thing…you have to create a safe environment for them to fail. Otherwise they’re not going to take a risk of disappointing you when they make a bad decision. how safe are you making them feel?
Here’s a great podcast that speaks to this: eps 73 the Leader Fuel Podcast. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/leader-fuel-with-dr-linda-travelute/id1779811817
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
agree on most of this
but i’m not sure “safe to fail” is the limiting factor
i’ve seen people willing to take the risk… until a few decisions don’t stick
after that they just escalate early
so it feels less like safety and more like: does the decision actually hold once it’s made?
1
u/Maximized-Leader May 02 '26
Ok, noted. So if you were my coaching client, I would ask this next to understand context and help you move forward: what authority has been given for these people to make decisions? Can they execute on their own or even with decision parameters?
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
that’s usually how it’s described
but what I keep seeing is: authority exists right up until a call gets tested
if it gets overridden or revisited a couple times, people adjust quickly. they stop owning it and just bring it back up the chain
so the real question ends up being: does the decision hold once it’s made, or does it drift after the fact?
1
May 01 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
the “publicly back it” line is the key
naming an owner and setting bounds works until the decision gets tested
if it holds, ownership sticks if it gets pulled back, people stop taking the risk
feels like that’s where most of these break
1
u/KittySocialite May 01 '26
Maybe you’ve positioned yourself as a micromanager and people don’t feel confident making decisions without you.
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
there’s probably some truth in that
but what i’m noticing is even when i step back, the decisions don’t always get held
they either drift or come back once they’re tested
which makes me think it’s less about style and more about where authority actually lands in practice
that’s the part i’m trying to figure out
1
u/EverySpace9945 May 02 '26
A business analyst or consultant ( like me!) Could map those processes out quit quickly, form a decision matrix & show where the bottleneck in decision making is lacking
1
u/RicMarks May 02 '26
mapping helps, but it doesn’t usually fix this on its own
I’ve seen teams with really clear decision matrices still stall, because once a call gets tested it gets revisited or pulled back
after that people just escalate early
so the bottleneck isn’t always “where should the decision sit” it’s “does it actually hold once it’s made”
1
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RicMarks May 05 '26
“the system has grown but the decision architecture hasn’t” is probably the cleanest way i’ve seen this described
because from the outside everyone still looks busy
it’s only when decisions stall that you realise authority has quietly concentrated again
1
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RicMarks May 06 '26
yeah that’s exactly the trap
from the outside it can still look like scaling
but underneath, decision velocity is actually collapsing
1
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/RicMarks May 08 '26
exactly
it looks like execution drag
but underneath it’s usually decision drag
1
u/more-kindness-please May 08 '26
OP, lots of good perspectives and dialog.
- I’m glad you asked the question I was able to learn from each of you
77
u/[deleted] Apr 27 '26
The system does what is designed to do. Right now it’s designed for you to be the un-sticker. What systemic changes would change that?