Why Your Team Struggles to Decide (and What to Do About It)
How many times have you left a meeting thinking, “Did we actually decide anything?”
You’re not alone. Studies suggest that half of all meetings end without a clear decision and nearly 70% of managers admit to backpedaling or rehashing previous decisions.
According to McKinsey, only 1 in 5 organizations believes they make decisions both quickly and effectively.
The result? Endless cycles of discussion, confusion about ownership, and a quiet erosion of trust.
Why We’re So Bad at Deciding
Part of the problem is psychological. As Daniel Kahneman reminds us in Thinking, Fast and Slow, our brains are wired to avoid loss, seek validation, and prefer the status quo. Teams compound this with social dynamics: dominant voices (or power, influence, or purse) steer the discussion, quieter (or introvert, younger, minority) members hold back, and fear of being wrong stalls forward motion.
In too many workplaces, decisions happen by default - through exhaustion, authority, or avoidance - rather than through a clear and fair process.
That’s why every high-performing team needs a Decision-Making Protocol in its tool belt of protocols.
A Decision-Making Protocol defines how a team will decide before they actually have to. It’s less about hierarchy and more about equity - making sure everyone understands the process, expectations, and boundaries.
When teams clarify how decisions are made, they eliminate one of the biggest sources of frustration and distrust: the feeling of being left out, overruled, or uncertain who decides what.
Every team should define:
Which decisions require full consensus (a collective agreement among team members that everyone can support and live with, even if it isn’t everyone’s first choice) — and which don’t.
How to handle absentee votes or objections.
What happens when consensus can’t be reached (fallback process).
Which tools or models they’ll use to evaluate options.
A simple framework like a Decision Matrix or Eisenhower 4-Blocker can help balance urgency against importance, ensuring that not every issue gets the same weight.
The Groan Zone (and Why It Matters)
Sam Kaner, in his Diamond Model of Participation, describes a critical stage in group decision-making called The Groan Zone - the messy middle where disagreement, frustration, and uncertainty peak. This is often where teams enter storming - and some never get out!
Most teams try to rush through it. High-performing teams, however, lean in. They know the “muck in the middle” is where creativity, inclusion, and better outcomes are born.
To navigate it, teams must:
Acknowledge frustration as normal.
Create psychological safety for differing opinions.
Break down complexity with visuals (whiteboards, post-its, or digital canvases).
Use time strategically—sometimes the best decision is made after a pause.
Even structured teams can fall into traps:
Commitment bias: doubling down on a bad call because of time or effort already spent.
Confirmation bias: only hearing what supports your prior view.
Loss aversion: avoiding new paths because change feels risky.
Status quo bias: sticking with “how we’ve always done it.”
Good teams fight these biases through reflection, data, and the courage to pivot. Great teams design mechanisms to detect when they’re falling into them - like red-flag check-ins, devil’s advocate rounds and “red” teams, or after-action reviews.
Decision-making protocols might sound procedural - but they’re deeply cultural. They communicate fairness, transparency, and inclusion. They say to every team member: We’re all in this together, and we’re all accountable for how we decide.
Because high-performing teams don’t just make decisions - they decide how to decide.
Direct Application
Before your next team meeting:
Ask: Do we know how this decision will actually be made?
Notice: Are all voices being heard—or just the loudest?
Clarify: What tool or process will we use to reach closure?
