Decisions do not always reach the business owner because the team lacks confidence, initiative or ability.
As I explored in my previous article, repeated escalation can develop because people are unclear about the authority they have, have received inconsistent responses in the past or have learned that decision-making freedom disappears whenever pressure rises.
Recognising the pattern is important, but it also raises a practical question:
Where should each type of decision sit instead?
The answer is unlikely to be that every decision should be delegated. Some decisions genuinely need the owner’s experience, commercial understanding or authority. Others may require discussion, particularly while an employee is developing their judgement.
But there will also be many decisions that a capable employee should be able to make without waiting for permission.
The aim is not to remove the owner from every decision. It is to create enough clarity for everyone to understand:
- what they can decide independently
- when consultation would be helpful
- when agreement is required
- and when escalation is the responsible response
That clarity begins by recognising that not every request for your input is the same.
Consultation is not the same as asking permission
There are different reasons that employees will attempt to bring decision-making back the business owner.
They are seeking Permission because they believe that “This decision belongs to you. I need you to tell me what to do.”
They are looking for Consultation because the employee believes that “This decision belongs to me, but your knowledge or perspective will help me make it well.”
They may simply be looking for Reassurance, the employee may already know what they intend to do but wants confirmation that their judgement is sound.
Escalation happens when the employee feels that the issue is genuinely outside their role, agreed authority or level of risk.
The challenge comes because on the surface these conversations can sound similar.
A team member may begin with:
“What do you think I should do?”
Your task as the leader isn’t necessarily to answer, it is to understand what kind of help is being requested.
This is when it would be helpful to ask some clarifying questions, things like:
- “What is your current thinking?”
- “What decision do you believe needs to be made?”
- “Which part are you uncertain about?”
- “Are you looking for approval, perspective or additional information?”
- “What would you recommend?”
The purpose is not to turn every conversation into a coaching exercise, as I understand that would become incredibly time consuming. What I am advocating here is to avoid taking ownership of a decision could and should belong elsewhere, with someone else.
A practical framework for deciding where decisions should sit
Let’s look at four practical levels of decision-making, in the order that you would hopefully help your team to put a framework in place to support the team in becoming more actively involved in the decision-making process.
1. Decide and act
These should be decisions where an employee has the knowledge, authority and context to make the decision.
They do not need prior approval or to report every detail toyou.
This level of decision-making is most suitable for:
- routine operational decisions
- established client processes
- low-risk adjustments
- decisions covered by clear standards or procedures
Key question for you to consider if an employee comes o you with this type of question is: “Is there any genuine reason this person cannot decide and act independently?”. If not put the decision back to them.
2. Decide and inform
This is where the employee makes the decision but keeps the relevant leader informed of what they have done.
This level of decision-making works best when:
- visibility matters
- the decision may affect another part of the business
- the owner needs awareness but not control
- the employee is building experience
Depending on the nature of the decision the update might happen:
- immediately
- during the weekly meeting
- through the client-management system
- only if the outcome differs from the expected position
It will be helpful for your team here if you give some clarity and examples of things that need to be reported in the different timescales.
3. Recommend and agree
This is where the employee gathers the information,considers the options and brings a recommendation to you.
The decision is then agreed with the owner and/or another senior person, depending on the size of your business.
This approach to decision-making is useful when:
- financial or reputational risk is higher
- the employee needs access to wider context
- the decision crosses departmental responsibilities
- the situation is unusual
- the person is developing their judgement
The important point here though is that they bring a recommendation, not simply the problem.
4. Escalate
This now becomes a decision-making strategy that is used only where the employee passes the issue to the appropriate person because it genuinely sits outside their remit.
This now becomes the most useful decision-making process only when there is:
- significant legal or regulatory risk
- a serious client complaint
- a decision outside agreed financial limits
- a safeguarding or wellbeing concern
- an issue with wider strategic consequences
At this point the escalation is not failure, it is a considered response. Healthy businesses need clear escalation.
The problem is not that escalation exists in the first place it is that it has becomes the default process for everything.
How to map the decisions that keep returning to you
A simple diagnostic exercise that you can use to get clarity on which decisions keep coming back to you is this.
For one or two weeks, keep a short record of all of the decisions that get brought to you. You might want to record:
- what the decision was
- who brought it
- why they felt it needed escalation
- what the team member contributed
- who ultimately made the decision
- whether it had been discussed before
- which of the four decision levels should apply in future
Once you have this data, it will then allow you to review the patterns.
Take time to consider:
- Which decisions appear repeatedly?
- Are the same people escalating, or is the issue business-wide?
- Are client decisions more likely to move upwards?
- Does escalation increase during busy periods?
- Are there areas where responsibility and authority do not match?
- Are employees seeking information that has never been shared?
- Are leaders responding consistently?
This turns something that might be a vague frustration into something observable and manageable.
How to clarify decision boundaries without creating bureaucracy
For many of my clients, their business is not big enough to need complicated chain of approval charts, that are to be used in every decision-making process.
The amount of effort it needs to implement has to be something that is manageable in a small business, alongside all the other demands on the owner’s time.
So here are some steps to help get things started.
Start with recurring decisions
Do not try to map every possible situation that might ever happen, this will become very difficult and time consuming to manage.
Instead, I would suggest that you begin with the decisions that:
- happen often
- cause delays
- create repeated interruptions
- affect clients
- regularly return to the owner
Agree the outcome and limits
Once you have identified the decisions that recur most often, the next step then is to clarify for each type of decision your thinking on:
- what good judgement looks like
- what the employee can decide
- any financial or risk limits
- what information they need
- when consultation is sensible
- what must be escalated
Make boundaries visible
The final step is then to make these boundaries visible to your team.
You might create:
- a one-page decision guide
- notes within a role description
- client-specific guidance
- team meeting agreements
- examples discussed during one-to-ones
- a simple decision table
Once you have shared these with your team and they are visible then your role as the business owner becomes one of review rather than control.
It is important that you agree sensible review points but also resist the temptation to check too frequently because that means that the ownership will quietly return to the leader.
What happens when someone makes the wrong decision?
Given the perfectionist nature of many people in professional service firms, it is important to recognise and become more comfortable with the levels of concern you have handing over decision making.
The reality when a business owner passes some decision-making freedom to their team there is also a need to accept that the team will not always decide exactly as the owner would.
Why?
Because even when the decision boundary is clear, people may not all experience that responsibility in the same way. In Why Decision-Making Frameworks Feel Different Across a Team, I explore how confidence, trust and previous experience can influence the way employees respond to greater authority.
What is perhaps most important here is that the business owner’s response when those mistakes happen will also shape the levels of future ownership.
Useful questions to help assess the situation when the business owner perceives the wrong decision has been made by the employee are:
- What information did they have?
- What reasoning did they use?
- Were the boundaries clear?
- Was the decision thoughtful, even if the outcome was imperfect?
- What should be learned or clarified?
- Does the process need changing, or does the individual need further support?
It is important to distinguish between situations where:
- a reasonable decision was made with an unfortunate outcome
- a capability or training gap has been highlighted
- there were unclear expectations set out initially
- there has been careless behaviour
- a decision was made outside agreed authority
Not every mistake needs the same response and a calm, proportionate response helps people develop judgement without removing accountability.
Clearer decisions do not mean lower standards
It is important to emphasise that where decision-making is delegated it is still possible to maintain the high levels of standards that professional service firms in particular are striving to deliver.
Standards can be protected through:
- setting clear outcomes
- giving appropriate training
- documenting core processes
- agreeing financial or risk limits
- providing access to relevant information
- maintaining a regular but proportionate review
- delivering feedback that develops judgement
- offering consistent leadership responses
As the owner you don’t need to choose between controlling every decision or having no oversight at all, there is a steadier middle ground.
Start with one decision
Creating clearer decision boundaries does not mean mapping every possible situation or removing yourself from the business.
It means becoming more intentional about where your involvement is genuinely needed and where it may be preventing someone else from developing their judgement.
You can begin with just one recurring decision.
Choose something that regularly interrupts you, delays progress or creates uncertainty for your team. Then agree:
- which of the four decision levels should apply
- what information the employee needs
- what limits or risks they should be aware of
- and what would genuinely require escalation
The first few conversations may feel less efficient than simply giving the answer. That is understandable. You are not only resolving today’s issue; you are helping someone develop the confidence and judgement to handle the next one.
Clarity will not remove every question, mistake or difficult decision. Nor should it.
What it can do is reduce the number of decisions that reach you simply because nobody is quite sure where else they belong.
Over time, this allows your team to take more meaningful ownership while you remain involved in the decisions where your experience, authority and perspective add the greatest value.
That is not stepping away from leadership.
It is creating a business in which leadership pressure can be shared more sustainably.
What could begin to change if your team understood not only what they were responsible for, but also what they were trusted to decide?
.png)
