When Does the Debate End?
I've noticed something over the years that I think we need to get better at.
We spend a lot of time making decisions. Sometimes months. We bring the right people together, work through the concerns, agree on a direction, and start moving.
Then something changes. Maybe a new leader comes in, someone else gets involved, or somebody simply doesn't agree with the original decision.
And somehow, we're having the same conversation all over again.
I've seen teams spend more time explaining why a decision was made than actually executing it.
That makes no sense to me.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for challenging decisions. I've made plenty that were questioned, and I'm sure I'll make plenty more. That's part of the job. If there's new information or a risk we didn't account for, we absolutely need to address it.
But we have to draw the line somewhere.
A new opinion isn't new information. And a change in leadership doesn't automatically invalidate the decisions that came before it.
At some point, we have to trust the work that went into making the decision and let people get on with it.
Otherwise, what are we doing?
We talk constantly about moving faster, improving delivery, and getting more done with the resources we have.
Yet we keep pulling those same resources back into conversations we already had.
Maybe we don't always need another meeting, another review, or another round of approvals.
Maybe we just need to execute.
We've discussed the concerns, established the direction, and committed the resources. Unless something materially changes, we're moving forward.
And if we got it wrong? Own it, adjust, and keep going.
But we need to stop confusing endless reconsideration with good leadership.
Thoughts?