Hi {{first_name}}

I have seen this pattern many times: a decision is made and communicated. The message is sent, the meeting is run and the direction is explained. On paper, the organisation has a clear path forward.

Yet I often notice a gap in how the decision is expressed. There may be one qualifier too many, a tone that suggests the door is still open, or an attempt to acknowledge the sceptics without fully closing down their objections. The team receives the communication, but what they hear is: we are moving in this direction, for now.

I believe that this gap, between the decision announced and the commitment the team perceives, is where execution breaks down.

McKinsey’s Organisational Health Index research, drawing on data from thousands of organisations worldwide, found that companies with leaders who act decisively and commit to the decisions made are 4.2 times more likely than their peers to be organisationally healthy. The research identifies commitment to decisions, not just the making of them, as a distinct driver of performance. (Source: McKinsey Organisational Health Index 2024)

That distinction is important. A decision made is not the same as a decision owned. The organisation responds to the latter.

In my work with senior leaders, I rarely find that a hedged decision reflects real ambivalence about the direction. Most leaders know what needs to happen. Leaders more often express uncertainty about how their decision will be received.

I understand that pressure. Anticipating pushback, wanting to keep difficult stakeholders onside and feeling uncomfortable about closing down alternative positions can all tempt us, at the moment of communication, to leave more room than the decision warrants.

I notice it first in the language: the qualifiers multiply, the certainty softens and the imperfections are emphasised in the hope of pre-empting resistance. The unintended message is that the decision remains provisional.

Teams read this with precision. In my experience, they know the difference between a leader who owns the call and one who is hoping it will be accepted. They respond accordingly: enough effort to show willing, but not enough to commit with conviction, until the direction proves durable.

When I look at it from their perspective, that calibrated response is entirely rational. It is also exactly what slows execution down.

The distinction I keep returning to is this: commitment is not the same as certainty. I can be fully committed to a direction while knowing it is imperfect. Any meaningful decision asks us to make the best call we can with the information available, then hold it with appropriate conviction.

For me, the problem is not that leaders communicate imperfect decisions. It is that we sometimes communicate them as if they are still negotiable when they are not, or still easily reversible when the cost of reversing them is high.

The shift I try to make is not towards false confidence, but towards greater honesty about what has been decided and what remains open. What is closed is closed. What is genuinely open should be named as such. I have found that teams can work with that clarity; what they struggle with is the ambiguity created when those two categories blur.

This week, I invite you to think about the last significant decision you communicated to your team.

The question to ask yourself is: did I close the door, or did I leave it open because I was managing the reaction rather than serving the direction?

If I realise the door is still open when it should be closed, I know the execution cost is already accumulating.

 Best wishes,

Gavin

Source: McKinsey & Company, Organisational Health Index research, cited in The Art of 21st-Century Leadership (2024).