Quality Team Decisions: Top 12 Pitfalls to Avoid

Why Teams Struggle to Make Quality Team Decisions
Project review data consistently shows that teams across all levels face relentless pressure to make decisions that drive both business results and employee engagement. Yet, even with access to more data, expert insight, and advanced collaboration tools, many teams still falter when it comes to making high quality team decisions. The stakes are high — poor choices can drain resources, squander opportunities, and erode team morale. So why do even the most talented teams repeatedly stumble in this critical area?

The Top 12 Reasons Teams Struggle to Make Team Quality Decisions

1. Lack of Clear and Agreed Upon Decision-Making Processes
   A primary reason teams struggle to make quality team decisions is the absence of a structured, consistent decision making process. Without shared norms and expectations, discussions can quickly become unproductive, and teams often default to reactive or ad-hoc choices. This lack of structure creates inconsistency across teams, functions, and business units, blurring roles, responsibilities, and accountability — and ultimately undermining the ability to make well-informed, strategic decisions.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Organizations must establish a shared decision making methodology that defines expectations, clarifies decision roles, and guides behavior at every level. When teams have a clear process, decisions are made efficiently, with alignment and accountability, reducing confusion and increasing the likelihood of consistent, high-quality outcomes.

2. Decision Authority is Unclear or Repeatedly Undermined
   When decision-making authority is delegated in principle but frequently overridden, bottlenecks emerge and ownership is stifled. Mid-level leaders may hesitate to act, fearing their choices will be second-guessed or reversed by senior leadership. This not only slows execution but erodes confidence and accountability throughout the organization.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Organizations must clearly define and protect decision rights. Leaders should empower teams by pushing decisions downward, reinforcing trust, and holding individuals accountable — rather than routinely retracting decisions. When authority is respected, teams act decisively, and decision quality improves.

3. Decisions Are Not Right-Sized for the Situation
   Not every decision warrants the same level of effort or scrutiny. Low-performing teams often apply identical rigor to both low-impact and high-impact decisions, creating inefficiencies and frustration. This misalignment can result in key stakeholders being either over-involved — slowing progress — or under-involved — causing miscommunication and misalignment.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Decisions should be right-sized by defining the appropriate decision-making mode at the outset. Tailoring the process to the impact and complexity of each decision ensures efficiency, alignment, and better outcomes.

4. Confusion between Agreement and Commitment
   Data from our strategic decision-making simulations show that many teams mistakenly equate “alignment” with full agreement. This misconception leads to over-processing, stalled decisions, and unnecessary delays. Others conflate alignment with compliance, undermining genuine commitment and execution. While consensus can be valuable in certain contexts, pursuing it at all costs often results in decision paralysis, stifled innovation, frustrated teams, and perceptions of ineffective leadership.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Teams should prioritize commitment over unanimous agreement. Once a decision is made, all members must support it — even if they initially disagreed. Leaders play a critical role in signaling that input is valued while ensuring decisions are made efficiently and executed effectively.

5. An Over-Reliance on Process vs. Judgment
   Insights from decision-making training show that frameworks can sometimes become a crutch rather than a tool. When teams rely on process to validate decisions instead of taking ownership, critical thinking, constructive debate, and accountability often decline. High-stakes decisions, in particular, demand a careful balance of rigor and agility — not blind adherence to procedure.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Decision-making frameworks should guide, not constrain. Teams must apply judgment, remain adaptive, and avoid letting bureaucracy slow or dilute outcomes. The best decisions blend structured rigor with flexible thinking.

6. Weak or Implicit Decision Context and Framing
   Too often, teams dive into discussions and solutions without clearly defining the problem, assumptions, scope, or constraints. Decision spaces can end up too narrow, excluding critical perspectives, or too broad, creating ambiguity and confusion. Without a well-framed context, even well-intentioned efforts can lead to misaligned or ineffective decisions.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Teams must invest in explicit, rigorous decision framing from the outset. Clearly defining the problem, boundaries, and assumptions ensures discussions are focused, perspectives are appropriately considered, and decisions are both informed and actionable.

7. Individual vs. Team Best Interests
   When decisions prioritize individual or functional interests over broader organizational needs, cross-functional strategies and synergies suffer. Leaders who advocate primarily for their own area risk leaving the benefits of collaboration untapped, undermining overall performance and alignment.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Organizations should cultivate a collaborative decision-making culture. Leaders must move from advocacy — pushing their own viewpoint — to inquiry, actively exploring what serves the greater good of the team and the organization. This approach drives alignment, maximizes impact, and strengthens collective ownership of decisions.

8. Confusion Between Data-Driven vs. Data-Informed Decision-Making
   Leadership simulation assessments reveal two common pitfalls. Some leaders wait for perfect data before acting, delaying decisions unnecessarily. Others selectively use data to reinforce pre-existing positions, allowing biases to overshadow objective insights. Both approaches undermine timely, effective decision-making.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Leaders must understand, model, and reinforce the distinction between data-informed and data-driven decision-making. Data-informed decisions combine available insights with strategic judgment, while data-driven decisions rely primarily on numbers. Both approaches have their place, but knowing when and how to apply each ensures decisions are timely, balanced, and impactful.

9. Poor Communication of Decisions
   Even well-made decisions can fail if leaders poorly communicate them. Commitment falters when leaders treat key decisions as mere updates rather than clear calls to action, or when different leaders relay the same decision inconsistently. Both scenarios breed confusion, misalignment, and reduced accountability.

   The Shift That’s Needed
   Standardize how decisions are communicated. Ensure everyone understands: (1) What was decided, with a clear articulation of the outcome; (2) Why the decision was made, including context and rationale; and (3) What happens next, specifying who is impacted and what actions are required. Clear, consistent communication ensures alignment and drives effective strategy execution.

10. Lack of Decision Accountability and Continuous Improvement
    High-stakes decisions require more than just execution; they demand follow-up and feedback loops to ensure success. When teams lack expectations for structured post-decision reviews, opportunities to learn and improve future decision-making are missed, leading to inconsistent outcomes and repeated errors.

    The Shift That’s Needed
    Embed accountability by clearly defining ownership, success metrics, and post-decision review processes. Establishing continuous improvement practices ensures that every decision informs and strengthens future choices, creating a culture of learning and higher-quality outcomes.

11. Cognitive Biases and Groupthink
    Even highly skilled teams are vulnerable to cognitive biases. Confirmation bias, anchoring, and overconfidence can subtly distort judgments, while groupthink — the tendency to prioritize harmony over critical evaluation — can stifle constructive debate and lead to suboptimal decisions.

    The Shift That’s Needed
    Teams must actively mitigate biases by fostering diverse perspectives and cultivating a psychologically safe environment where constructive dissent is encouraged. Techniques like the “red team” approach can challenge assumptions, surface blind spots, and prevent groupthink, ultimately leading to higher quality team decisions.

12. Emotional and Political Team Dynamics
    Team decision-making extends beyond logic — it is often shaped by emotions, egos, and internal office politics. Some individuals dominate discussions, while others hold back out of fear of conflict or repercussions. Personal agendas can skew priorities, shifting focus from what’s best for the organization to what benefits certain individuals or factions.

    The Shift That’s Needed
    Organizations should cultivate a culture where every voice is heard and decisions are based on merit, not politics. Structured decision-making methods, rotating facilitators, and clearly defined success criteria help minimize emotional interference and ensure that decisions serve the broader organizational goals.

The Bottom Line
Teams face a wide range of obstacles that can undermine the quality team decisions. To improve outcomes, organizations should implement structured decision-making frameworks, promote diverse perspectives, balance data with judgment, and cultivate a culture of psychological safety and accountability. By tackling these challenges deliberately, teams can make decisions that are faster, smarter, and consistently aligned with organizational goals.

To learn more about why teams struggle to make quality team decisions, download 3 Research-Backed Steps to Set Your Team Up to Make Better Decisions

Tristam Brown

Tristam Brown is an executive business consultant and organizational development expert with more than three decades of experience helping organizations accelerate performance, build high-impact teams, and turn strategy into execution. As CEO of LSA Global, he works with leaders to get and stay aligned™ through research-backed strategy, culture, and talent solutions that produce measurable, business-critical results. See full bio.