INSIGHTS
Practical thinking for leaders of growing organisations.
Growth and change create pressure in predictable places: priorities multiply, decisions slow, leadership capacity becomes stretched and ways of working stop supporting the organisation as effectively as they once did.
These insights explore the patterns I see in growing organisations and offer practical questions, ideas and approaches that leaders can apply.
Growth and organisational clarity
Six signs your organisation has outgrown the way it works
Growth does not always create an obvious crisis. These six patterns can indicate that leadership practices, decision-making and accountability are no longer keeping pace with the organisation.
5-minute read
CEO and founder capacity
Why decisions keep returning to the CEO
When too many decisions return to the same person, the problem may not be delegation alone. It can indicate unclear priorities, decision rights or confidence across the leadership team.
4-minute read
Leadership effectiveness
Why leadership meetings create activity but not enough action
Full agendas and extensive updates do not always produce progress. This article explores the practical changes that help leadership meetings create decisions, accountability and follow-through.
5-minute read
Why decisions keep returning to the CEO
Why decisions keep returning to the CEO
As organisations grow, the CEO should become less involved in everyday decisions.
Yet in many businesses, the opposite happens.
More people join. More functions are created. More decisions need to be made—and an increasing number of them find their way back to the CEO.
This is often described as a delegation problem. But the underlying issue may be a lack of organisational clarity.
People do not know who can decide
A decision may involve several teams, with no clear owner. Everyone contributes, but no one feels authorised to make the final call.
Sending it to the CEO feels safer.
Priorities are unclear
When people do not know which outcomes matter most, they struggle to make trade-offs. The CEO becomes the person expected to resolve every conflict between priorities.
Leaders fear making the wrong choice
If previous decisions have been challenged or reversed, leaders may become cautious. They seek approval rather than risk getting something wrong.
Accountability is not matched by authority
A leader may be responsible for an outcome but lack the authority, information or resources required to achieve it.
Responsibility moves down, while decisions continue moving up.
The CEO has become the organisational safety net
Founders and CEOs often step in because they can resolve issues quickly. But repeated intervention can create dependency.
People learn that the fastest route to a decision is to involve the CEO.
What can change?
- Leaders need clear answers to four questions:
- Who owns this decision?
- Who needs to contribute?
- What principles should guide the choice?
- When does it genuinely require escalation?
The CEO must also allow leaders to make decisions within agreed boundaries—even when they might have chosen differently themselves.
The aim is not to remove the CEO from important decisions. It is to protect their attention for the decisions only they can make.
If too many decisions are returning to you, a clarity conversation can help identify whether the issue is delegation, accountability or the way the organisation operates.
Why leadership meetings create activity but not enough action
Leadership meetings are expensive.
They bring together the organisation’s most senior people, often for several hours. Yet many leadership teams leave with plenty of discussion and too little clarity about what will happen next.
Here are five common reasons.
1. The agenda is dominated by updates
Leaders spend most of the meeting describing what has happened. Information is shared, but there is little time left for decisions, risks or cross-functional issues.
Updates that can be read in advance should not consume valuable leadership time.
2. The purpose of each item is unclear
A subject appears on the agenda, but no one knows whether the team is being asked to discuss, decide, challenge or simply note it.
The result is a long conversation without a clear conclusion.
Every agenda item should state the required outcome:
- For decision
- For discussion
- For challenge
- For information
3. Decisions are not captured clearly
People leave with different interpretations of what was agreed. The issue then returns at the next meeting.
Record the decision—not a summary of the entire discussion.
4. Actions do not have one owner
An action assigned to “the leadership team” or several functions rarely has clear accountability.
Every action needs one named owner and an agreed date.
5. There is no follow-through between meetings
Actions are reviewed only when the leadership team meets again. By then, deadlines have passed or circumstances have changed.
A leadership rhythm must continue between meetings through visible actions, decisions and escalation.
A simple meeting test
At the end of every leadership meeting, ask:
- What did we decide?
- What changed as a result?
- Who owns each action?
- What needs to be communicated?
- What must return to this meeting—and when?
A good leadership meeting does not need to feel busy. It needs to create clarity, accountability and movement.
If your leadership meetings consume time without creating enough progress, a clarity conversation can help you identify what needs to change.