The decision making dilemma: why executives keep making decisions at the wrong altitude
The leadership team thought the decision was clear
The operating model spelled out who owned what, the governance was defined, and the teams were ready to move.
But within 48 hours, three different executives had made three different calls on the same situation.
One executive stepped in to “help” unblock the team and made a tactical decision the team should have been able to do on their own.
Another executive paused the work and escalated the decision to the steering committee because they saw different implementation risks depending on what the final decision was.
A third executive saw the current solution was not going to provide the value they originally thought and recut and reprioritised the strategic roadmap.
The downstream impact was immediate: confusion, rework, and a quiet sense amongst the teams that the operating model wasn’t working because they didn’t know who’s decision was the one they were meant to follow.
This is the decision making dilemma. The moment leaders can and will unintentionally make decisions at the wrong altitude, destabilising the sustainable and productive pace of delivery, muddying the waters when it comes to clarity and ownership of each situation.
It is one of the most predictable behavioural failure modes in every transformation.
The decision making dilemma isn’t about capability, it’s about pressure
Executives don’t make decisions at the wrong altitude because they’re incompetent. They do it because they’re navigating:
Ambiguity,
Political exposure,
Reputational risk,
Delivery pressure,
Stakeholder expectations,
Fear of misalignment, and
Fear of slowing things down.
Under pressure, altitude collapses.
A leader who is usually recognised for their strategic nature can get dragged down into the weeds and lose sight of the bigger picture:
Leaders step down when they feel urgency and pressure to deliver,
Leaders escalate up when they feel uncertainty but can see what is within their control to change, and
Leaders freeze when they feel exposed and can’t see a way forward.
The operating model assumes discipline where leaders stay at the altitude their title gives them.
However the human system behaves according to emotional logic.
The three types of decision making dilemmas
Every organisation experiences the same three patterns
Downward pressure: leaders operate at too low a level compared to where they need to be
This is the most common and can colloquially be recognised as micromanagement in action.
Executives step into decisions the team should own because:
They want to help,
They want to speed things up,
They want to reduce risk,
They want to avoid mistakes, and
They feel responsible.
But stepping down too low creates:
Dependency,
Bottlenecks,
Disempowerment,
A slowed pace,
Erosion of ownership, and
Quiet frustration.
Teams stop making decisions on their own and they start waiting for others to make decisions for them.
The operating model collapses from the bottom up.
Upward pressure: leaders escalate too early without working through what is within their control first
Executives escalate decisions early because:
They feel uncertain,
They want alignment,
They fear making the wrong call,
They want political safety, and
They want to avoid conflict.
But early escalation creates:
Decision churn,
Parallel governance,
Inconsistent messaging,
Diluted accountability, and
Slowed delivery.
Escalation feels safe, but it signals a capability gap rather than a risk gap.
The freeze: leaders not deciding at all
This is the most invisible and the most damaging decision making dilemma.
Leaders freeze when:
The stakes feel high,
The ambiguity feels overwhelming,
The politics feel complex, and
The consequences feel heavy.
Freeze creates:
Stalled delivery,
Rising anxiety,
Increased escalation,
Blurred ownership, and
Quiet resentment.
Teams don’t know whether to move or to wait so they hedge and their pace of productivity collapses.
Why operating models assume altitude discipline
Because altitude discipline is the backbone of:
Sustainable and productive pace,
Clarity,
Ownership,
Alignment,
Governance, and
Psychological Safety.
When leaders make decisions at the right altitude:
Teams move faster,
Governance holds,
Accountability is clear,
Delivery stabilises,
Politics reduce, and
Ambiguity shrinks.
Altitude discipline is the behavioural engine of transformation. Without it, the operating model is theoretical.
Why leaders struggle with altitude (even the senior ones)
Because altitude isn’t natural. It’s learnt.
Most leaders were never taught:
How to read decision altitude,
How to hold altitude under pressure,
How to avoid stepping down,
How to avoid escalating too early,
How to decide through ambiguity,
How to manage emotional load,
How to navigate politics without distorting delivery, and
How to reinforce altitude in others.
Altitude is a capability, not a personality trait, and capability gaps are normal.
The problem is that organisations treat altitude drift as a performance issue instead of a behavioural reality.
The emotional system behind altitude drift
Altitude drift is emotional, not intellectual:
Leaders step down when they feel urgency,
Leaders escalate up when they feel uncertainty, and
Leaders freeze when they feel exposed.
The emotional system determines altitude.
Until leaders understand their emotional triggers, altitude will drift - even with a perfect operating model.
How strong leaders stabilise their altitude
It’s not through more governance, not through more process, and not through more communications.
Strong leaders stabilise altitude by:
Naming their own drifting patterns,
Reinforcing decision rights in the room,
Protecting team ownership,
Resisting the urge to “help” by stepping down,
Resisting the urge to “seek safety” by escalating up,
Deciding through ambiguity,
Holding boundaries under pressure,
Creating psychological safety,
Building capability in others, and
Seeking support to navigate emotional load.
Altitude discipline is a leadership behaviour, not a structural feature.
If you’re seeing altitude drift, you’re not alone
Most senior leaders feel altitude drift long before anyone names it:
They see decisions bouncing around,
They sense ownership collapsing,
They feel the sustainable and productive pace wobbling,
They carry the emotional load,
They absorb the political complexity,
They try to stablise the system, and
They try to hold the model together.
They also try and do it quietly because saying “I need help to navigate this” feels risky even if it’s the most senior thing a leader can say in a situation like this.
You don’t have to navigate this alone
If you want a strategic partner who can help you build altitude discipline and stablise your operating model, reach out.
This is the work I do with senior product and transformation leaders who lead complex transformations.