Decide Already: Why Smart Leaders Get Stuck and How to Move Forward
TL;DR Smart leaders don’t just make decisions—they choose the right way to make them. But too often, decision-making gets stuck due to fear of being wrong, analysis paralysis, or chasing universal buy-in. This article breaks down common barriers to decision-making and introduces practical models—like Authority, Consult-and-Decide, Consensus, RAPID, DACI, and DRI—that help leaders gain clarity, speed, and alignment. Whether you’re facing stalled decisions or unclear ownership, these tools can help you move forward with confidence.
Have you ever been part of a team where you just went in circles talking about different ideas but never fully aligned on a clear direction? Or maybe you've seen decisions made so quickly that key perspectives were overlooked, leading to challenges that could have been avoided.
As leaders, we navigate hundreds of decisions —from the routine to the transformational. Among the challenges leaders must face, decision-making is one of the hardest, yet it is critical to an organization's success. In fact, it’s the top-ranked area of opportunity across all the teams that have taken the Regroup TeamUp Assessment. And, at Regroup, we've found that organizational performance depends first on leaders making and communicating decisions (you might be surprised how many leaders are hindered by indecision), and then on how those decisions get made.
The Hidden Cost of Indecision
I've noticed a common theme that happens a lot in conference rooms, across all kinds of industries. Ironically, the very qualities that often make companies successful—thoughtful deliberation, inclusive leadership, and a strong sense of collaboration—can become barriers when it’s time to make a decision.
Skilled leaders know when to keep exploring options, when to bring others into the process, and when to step in and make the call. But even experienced leaders can find themselves stuck.
So, why is decision-making so hard? Three common psychological barriers show up again and again:
Fear of being wrong – For many leaders, the idea of making the wrong call isn’t just uncomfortable—it feels like a threat to their credibility. The higher the stakes, the more pressure there is to be right, which can lead to endless hesitation.
Analysis paralysis – In environments where data is abundant, the temptation to keep gathering “just a little more information” can be hard to resist. But chasing perfect clarity rarely leads to better decisions—just delayed ones.
Universal buy-in syndrome – A commitment to inclusion is important, but when the need for alignment outweighs the need for action, decision-making turns into a relationship management exercise. The result? Progress stalls while leaders wait for unanimous agreement that may never come.
When leaders fall into these traps, decisions get deferred, the status quo drags on—or worse, individual team members take matters into their own hands and move in different directions. The costs of indecision are real: missed opportunities, diminished trust in leadership, and wasted time and productivity. Before tackling these psychological traps that get in the way of decisions, it’s worth stepping back to consider how decisions are being made in the first place.
Decision-Making Methods: Choosing the Right Approach
Just like a skilled carpenter knows when to reach for a hammer versus a saw, effective leaders tailor their decision-making approach to the situation. Yet in many organizations, there’s a tendency to default to a single method—often consensus—regardless of context. This one-size-fits-all approach can quietly stall progress and limit innovation.
When I was at Google, most decisions leaned heavily on consensus. It made sense in a culture that was bottom-up and highly inclusive—leaders wanted everyone to feel bought in. But over time, teams started to recognize that consensus wasn’t always the right fit—especially when speed and clarity were critical. The lesson? The method matters just as much as the decision itself.
The appropriate use of decision-making tools is dependent on context. Here are four different decision-making methods that can improve decision speed when correctly implemented:
1. Authority
When a single decision-maker acts without consultation, we have authority-based decision-making. This approach is effective in situations requiring immediate action, specialized expertise, or when accountability needs to be crystal clear.
Think of a pilot making split-second adjustments during turbulence. There's no time for committee deliberation; expertise and speed take precedence.
Authority works when:
Immediate action is required
Specialized expertise resides in one person
Accountability needs to be crystal clear
The consequences affect a limited scope
2. Consult-and-Decide
This method blends efficiency and collaboration. While the ultimate decision rests with the decision-maker, they actively seek out diverse perspectives before making the final call. This differs from a consensus model, as there is no uncertainty about who has the final say and the decision-maker doesn't need full support.
A chef creating a new menu may consult many people: suppliers about which ingredients are in season, sous chefs about the level of difficulty to execute a dish, and even customers about their favorite dishes. Ultimately, however, the chef has the final say in what goes on the menu, even if a couple of line cooks don't like it.
Consult-and-decide thrives when:
Diverse perspectives are needed to inform the decision
Buy-in matters for implementation, but speed is also important
The decision-maker lacks complete information
Stakeholders understand they're advisors, not decision-makers
3. Consensus
True consensus isn’t about unanimous agreement—it’s about shared understanding and collective support. It means every voice has been heard, different perspectives have been considered, and the group can stand behind the final decision, even if it wasn’t everyone’s first choice.
This is where the principle of disagree and commit really shines. When people feel like their input was genuinely considered, they’re far more willing to commit—even if the outcome isn’t exactly what they wanted. But when someone feels dismissed or unheard, it becomes much harder to get true buy-in.
Take, for example, a cross-functional team evaluating a new project management tool:
Engineering wants strong integration with GitHub.
Marketing wants good campaign planning templates.
Design needs a visual, flexible interface.
Finance is concerned about cost.
The team lead wants something that’s easy to onboard and scale.
As the different stakeholders explore options, each tool has trade-offs—none is perfect for everyone. If they voted, they might pick the most popular option, but some team members would feel frustrated or excluded.
Each stakeholder shares their must-haves and concerns. They listen, ask questions, and work toward a shared understanding of what matters most. Eventually, they choose a tool that doesn’t fully satisfy everyone, but meets the most critical needs across roles. The result isn’t perfect, but everyone can live with it—and more importantly, support it. It took longer—but it led to a more resilient decision with stronger alignment.
Consensus is valuable when:
Deep commitment across the group is critical
The decision impacts multiple roles or departments
There’s time to explore options and build shared understanding
The team has strong facilitation, active listening, and enough psychological safety to speak honestly
Consensus Framework
Clarifying Roles and Responsibility
But even with the right method, decisions can still falter—especially when no one’s sure who’s responsible for what. Questions like “Who’s actually making this decision?” or “Who’s accountable for moving it forward?” often go unanswered, especially in cross-functional or fast-paced environments.
This is where decision role frameworks come in. While decision-making methods define how a decision gets made, frameworks like RAPID, DACI, and DRI define who plays each role in the process. This distinction is essential when decisions involve multiple stakeholders, layers of leadership, or complex execution paths.
These role frameworks bring clarity, reduce confusion, and increase accountability—so decisions don’t get lost in loops of input, ambiguity, or inertia.
Many leaders struggle with slow decision velocity and unclear ownership. One of our clients, for example, was working to shift from a deeply consensus-driven culture to one that relied on clearly defined ownership. By introducing the concept of a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) and clarifying who was accountable for each decision, the organization saw a meaningful increase in both accountability and speed.
Take a look at the frameworks below—and the next time you see indecision or unclear follow-through, ask yourself: Would defining decision-making roles help this team move forward?
1. RAPID
Best for: High-stakes, cross-functional, or strategic decisions
Developed by Bain & Company, the RAPID framework is built for complexity. It separates roles in the decision-making process to ensure the right people are involved in the right ways.
RAPID roles:
R – Recommend: Proposes the decision based on analysis and insight
A – Agree: Must approve the recommendation (often holds veto power)
P – Perform: Executes the decision
I – Input: Provides expertise or perspective
D – Decide: Has final authority and makes the call
Use RAPID when:
A decision involves multiple stakeholders across functions
The process needs to balance input, approval, and execution
There's a risk of decisions getting stuck in political or consensus-driven loops
You're setting up a repeatable structure for strategic decision-making (e.g., for budgeting, product roadmaps, or org design)
Common pitfalls:
Unclear who the final decision-maker is
Too many people in the Agree role, creating bottlenecks
The Decider is disconnected from implementation and impact
Performers lack the authority or resources to execute the decision
2. DACI
Best for: Collaborative, fast-paced decisions—especially in product or project teams
A variation of the RACI model, DACI is widely used in product and project environments where collaboration is high, and speed matters.
DACI roles:
D – Driver: Owns the decision-making process and ensures the decision moves forward
A – Approver: Has the final say
C – Contributors: Offer input and subject matter expertise
I – Informed: Kept in the loop after the decision is made
Use DACI when:
A decision requires many voices, but someone needs to keep things on track
You’re in a fast-moving, iterative environment (e.g., sprints, product cycles)
You're working across teams and need to ensure alignment without delay
What makes DACI effective:
It separates driving the decision forward from approving the outcome, which can help prevent stalling and confusion. The Driver keeps things moving; the Approver ensures quality and alignment.
3. DRI (Directly Responsible Individual)
Best for: Speed, autonomy, and clear accountability
Popularized by Apple and used widely in tech, the DRI model is the simplest of the three—and extremely powerful in fast-moving, ownership-driven cultures.
DRI role:
Directly Responsible Individual: One person is clearly accountable for making and executing the decision. They may delegate, collaborate, or consult—but they are ultimately responsible for getting it done.
Use DRI when:
You need fast, accountable execution
A decision doesn’t require extensive input or cross-functional approval
You want to avoid confusion over ownership
DRI is especially useful for:
Product or feature launches
Internal initiatives
Any decision where speed and accountability outweigh the need for deep collaboration
So far, we’ve looked at how decisions get made and who plays a role in that process. But let’s not forget the inner game: the psychological traps that make even the best frameworks hard to follow.
Breaking Through Decision Barriers: Practical Approaches
Okay, so we’ve outline different methods for making decisions, and different frameworks for clarifying decision-making roles. Now, let’s explore how to overcome the psychological barriers that stall decisions. Here are a few proven approaches to move through these traps with more clarity, confidence, and speed.
1. Fear of Being Wrong → Normalize Imperfection
When the pressure to be “right” is high, leaders can become overly cautious or delay making a call altogether. But perfect decisions are rare—and not necessary. And, bonus points — when you normalize imperfection, you’ll also be fostering more psychological safety in your team, which is super important for any if your team is working in an environment that’s complex or uncertain.
Try this:
Normalize imperfection. Reframe decisions as progress, not performance. Say things like, “We don’t need to be 100% sure—here’s what we know and why we’re moving forward.”
Model learning over perfection. When leaders are transparent about uncertainty, they create psychological safety for others to do the same. Say: “I know we’re not going to get this perfectly right, but what’s most important is that we fail fast, learn and iterate.”
Treat decisions as experiments. Ask, “What can we learn by trying this?” or “How might we test this idea before fully committing?” This mindset lowers the stakes and opens the door to faster, more adaptive decision-making—especially useful for process changes or new ideas.
2. Analysis Paralysis → Use the Two-Way Door Framework
When there’s always more data to consider, it’s tempting to delay the decision in search of perfect clarity. But more information doesn’t always lead to better decisions—just slower ones.
Try this:
Use the Two-Way Door Framework. Jeff Bezos made this framework famous. He basically categorized decisions as either "one-way doors" (irreversible) or "two-way doors" (reversible). Two-way door decisions should be made quickly with limited information, as they can easily be reversed if they are unsuccessful.
Ask: “If this decision doesn’t work, can we reverse it?”If yes → it’s a two-way door. Decide quickly, test, and adjust.
If no → it’s a one-way door. Slow down and involve the right people.
Define “good enough” up front. Know what level of certainty or data is sufficient to move forward.
Time-box the decision. Give yourself or the team a deadline to choose, especially when the stakes are low.
3. Universal Buy-in Syndrome → Shift from Consensus to Clarity
Wanting everyone to feel included is a good instinct—but waiting for full agreement can lead to gridlock. What’s often missing is clarity on who decides, and how.
Try this:
Clarify decision roles and methods. Not every decision needs consensus. Define whether the decision-maker is using input from others (consultative), getting alignment (collaborative), or deciding solo (authority), and use one of frameworks described below to clarify roles in the decision-making process.
Use “disagree and commit.” Involve people early, listen to input, then move forward even if there’s not total agreement. People are more likely to commit if they feel heard.
Document decision rights. Create a simple matrix outlining:
Who decides on what types of decisions
What method is used (consensus, consultative, delegated, etc.)
Who needs to be consulted or informed
When decisions should be escalated
How decisions will be communicated
This clarity accelerates decisions and reduces second-guessing across teams.
Decision Speed Checklist
Even with the right tools and mindset, one big question remains: how fast should you move? The quick checklist below will help you assess the nature of a decision so you can choose the right pace—reducing overthinking, avoiding unnecessary delays, and focusing your team’s energy where it matters most.
Run through the questions below before your next decision and ask: “Is this a moment to move, or a moment to pause?”
Speed Up If You Can Answer “Yes” to Most of These:
Is this decision reversible if it doesn’t go as planned?
Are the stakes relatively low (short-term, low-risk impact)?
Are key stakeholders already aligned or informed?
Is it clear who owns the decision and who will execute it?
Is this decision blocking other work from moving forward?
Do we have enough information to make a “good enough” call?
→ If you checked most of these: go fast, make the call, and adjust if needed.
Slow Down If You Answer “Yes” to These:
Is the decision irreversible or hard to undo?
Are the stakes high (long-term implications or big consequences)?
Are stakeholders misaligned or unclear about the direction?
Is there confusion about roles—who decides, who contributes, who executes?
Will the decision impact culture, norms, or trust on the team?
→ If you checked several of these: slow down, get alignment, and clarify roles before moving forward.
The Path Forward
High-performing organizations understand that decision quality isn’t just about the outcome—it’s about the process. They don’t default to a single decision-making style and they don’t assume the decision will get made. Instead, they choose the right approach for the context, balancing speed, inclusiveness, and clarity; and they clarify the roles and responsibilities involved in making the decision.
At Regroup, we help leaders do just that. Through executive advisory and leadership development, we support organizations in making faster, smarter decisions—without sacrificing alignment or trust.
As you reflect on your team or organization, ask yourself:
Where are decisions getting stuck—or endlessly delayed?
Where is it unclear who decides, or how?
Are the biggest challenges around making the decision, communicating it, or following through?
Improving decision-making isn’t just a leadership skill—it’s a competitive advantage. Strong execution, exceptional leadership, and even peace of mind all flow from one source: clear, confident decisions made with the right level of speed and involvement.
In the end, great leadership isn’t defined by getting every decision “right”—but by creating the conditions where the right decisions can be made, together.
If your team is spinning in circles or struggling with accountability or execution, let’s talk. At Regroup, we help leadership teams build decision-making muscle so they can move faster, align better, and lead with confidence. Click here to schedule a call.
