Why Teams Struggle to Make Quality Decisions

Why Teams Struggle to Make Quality Decisions
We know from project postmortem data that teams at all levels are under constant pressure to make decisions that drive both results and employee engagement. Yet, despite having access to data, expertise, and collaboration tools, many teams struggle to make high-quality decisions. The consequences of poor decision-making can be severe — leading to wasted resources, missed opportunities, and decreased morale. So why do teams, even those composed of talented individuals, often fail in this critical area?

The Top 12 Reasons Teams Struggle to Make Quality Decisions

1. Lack of Clear and Agreed Upon Decision-Making Processes
   One of the most common reasons teams struggle to make quality decisions is the absence of a structured decision-making process. Without cultural norms around decision making, discussions can become unproductive, and teams may default to ad-hoc or reactive decision-making. This lack of structure and organizational capability leads to inconsistent approaches across teams, functions, and business units causing confusion about roles, responsibilities, and accountability, making it difficult to arrive at well-informed, strategic choices.

   Shift Needed
   Establish a shared framework, clear expectations, and role clarity for every decision at all organizational levels to clarify roles and ensure that decisions are made efficiently and effectively.

2. Decision Authority is Unclear or Repeatedly Taken Back
   When decisions are delegated in theory but frequently overridden, bottlenecks are created, and decision ownership is discouraged. This causes mid-level leaders to hesitate for fear of being overwritten or second-guessing by senior leadership.

   Shift Needed
   Clarify and protect decision rights — leaders must push decisions down, reinforce trust, and improve accountability instead of pulling decisions back.

3. Decisions Are Not Right Sized for the Situation
   Not every decision needs the same process. Low performing teams apply the same level of rigor to low-impact and high-impact decisions, leading to inefficiency. This causes key stakeholders to be either over-included (causing delays) or under-included (leading to misalignment).

   Shift Needed
   Right-size decisions by defining the appropriate decision-making mode upfront.

4. Confusion between Agreement vs. Commitment
   We know from our strategic decision making simulation that too many teams assume “alignment” means that everyone must agree to move forward. This leads to over-processing and stalled decisions. Others confuse alignment with compliance, which weakens commitment and execution. While consensus can be valuable in certain situations, striving for it at all costs can lead to decision paralysis, reduced innovation, increased team frustration, and perceived leadership ineffectiveness.

   Shift Needed
   Instead of consensus, teams should aim for commitment. Once a decision is made, all team members should align behind it — even if they initially disagreed. Leadership should make it clear that input is valued, but final decisions must be made efficiently.

5. An Over-Reliance on Process vs. Judgment
   We know from decision making training participants that sometimes a decision making framework can become too much of a crutch. When decision-makers rely on the process for validation rather than owning the decision itself, critical thinking, constructive debate, and employee ownership can wane.  Most high stakes decisions require a thoughtful balance of rigor and agility.

   Shift Needed
   Use a proven decision making process as a guide, not a constraint — decision-making must be adaptive, not bureaucratic.

6. Weak or Implicit Decision Context and Framing
   Too often teams rush into discussions, debate, and solutions without properly defining the specific problem, assumptions, scope, or constraints. Decision spaces are often too narrow (missing key perspectives) or too broad (leading to ambiguity).

   Shift Needed
   Invest in explicit and rigorous decision framing and defining upfront.

7. Individual vs. Team Best Interests at Heart
   When decisions are anchored in individual interests rather than the broader business needs, cross-functional strategies and synergies suffer. When leaders advocate for their own function’s priorities instead of seeking enterprise-wide success, the benefits of collaboration are left untapped.

   Shift Needed
   Foster a collaborative decision-making culture where leaders shift from advocacy (pushing a viewpoint) to inquiry (exploring what’s best for the greater good of the team and organization).

8. Confusion Between Data-Driven vs. Data-Informed Decision-Making
   We know from leadership simulation assessment data that too many leaders wait for all of the perfect data instead of making well-informed decisions with available insights. We also know that other leaders use data selectively to support pre-existing positions and strategic biases rather than letting objective data shape the best decision.

   Shift Needed
   Teach, role model, and reinforce the distinction between data-informed (integrating insights with strategic judgment) and data-driven (relying solely on numbers).  Remember that both have their place.

9. Poor Communication of Decisions
   Commitment breaks down when decisions (even good decisions) are poorly communicated. This occurs most often when leaders communicate key decisions as updates rather than clear calls to action or when different leaders communicate the same decision differently.  Both approaches create misalignment and confusion.

   Shift Needed
   Standardize decision communication by ensuring that everyone knows: (1) What was decided including a clear articulation of the outcome; (2) Why the decision made including the context and rationale; (3) What happens next including who is impacted, and what they need to do.

10. Lack of Decision Accountability and Continuous Improvement
    Once a decision is made — especially a high stakes decision — ensuring follow-up and feedback loops is essential to ensure successful decision execution. The lack of expectation to conduct a structured post-decision postmortem leads to inconsistent decision-making improvements.

    Shift Needed
    Build post-decision accountability by defining ownership, measurement, and continuous improvement to improve future decision-making

11. Cognitive Biases and Groupthink
    Even highly skilled teams fall victim to cognitive biases. Confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and overconfidence can all distort decision-making. Additionally, groupthink — the tendency for teams to prioritize harmony over critical evaluation — can suppress constructive conflict and lead to suboptimal outcomes.

    Shift Needed
    To combat biases, teams should encourage diverse perspectives and create a psychologically safe environment where constructive dissent is welcomed. Techniques such as the “red team” approach can help teams challenge assumptions and avoid groupthink.

12. Emotional and Political Team Dynamics
    Team decision-making is not just a logical exercise — it is influenced by emotions, egos, and office politics. Some individuals may dominate discussions, while others hesitate to speak up for fear of conflict or repercussions. Personal agendas can also interfere, shifting the focus from the best decision for the organization to what benefits certain individuals or factions.

    Shift Needed
    Teams should foster a culture where all voices are heard, and decisions are made based on merit rather than politics. Using structured decision-making methods, rotating decision facilitators, and setting clear criteria for success can help reduce emotional interference.

The Bottom Line
Teams struggle to make quality decisions for a myriad of common reasons.  To improve decision-making, teams should adopt structured frameworks, encourage diverse perspectives, balance data with action, and foster a culture of psychological safety and accountability. By addressing these challenges head-on, teams can make faster, smarter, and more effective decisions.

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