Some companies don’t postpone decisions. They turn them into meetings.
In such organizations, every problem that requires a clear answer first becomes a topic for discussion. The same people gather around the same table again, the same data is reviewed, and almost the same explanations are given. The conversation stays calm; everyone has their say, and in the end, a new deadline is set. No one has shirked responsibility. No one has openly said they don’t want to decide. Yet nothing has changed.
Such meetings can also serve as a shield against making a decision. Responsibility is diffused until no one can clearly recognize it as their own. The problem remains unresolved, but the blame for its persistence is spread among enough people that no one feels particularly responsible.
A decision leaves a consequence we can verify and for which someone is accountable. A meeting without a decision leaves almost nothing behind: just minutes, a few messages, and another date on the calendar.
Meanwhile, the deadline looms, the customer waits, costs rise, and the people who flagged the issue begin to see that their swift response counts for nothing in an organization that lacks the courage to act.
On the surface, there’s still a sense of activity. The calendar is full, reports are circulating, office doors are opening and closing, and people seem busy. But the company isn’t moving forward.
Organizations don’t always stall because of bad decisions. Some stall because decisions circulate among desks for so long that, in the end, without questions and without a meeting, reality imposes them.
Comments