Build for Judgment, Not Just Execution

Understanding why your people bring issues instead of options is an important step. People bring forward issues as they experience it—immediate and urgent. But closeness is not the same as clarity.

They do it because somewhere in the system they learned it is safer, expected, necessary, or it is the only path that works.

That's a problem for everyone - leadership, the team, and the operating model.

• The operating model creates the behavior because it was never designed to distribute judgment only tasks.

  
  

• When decision rights are ambiguous, the rational move is to escalate. Not for lack of confidence, but because the system hasn't defined where the decision lives.

  
  

• When leaders consistently accept raw inputs and work through them, they're reinforcing this is the expected workflow.

People act on what gets rewarded. If escalation moves things forward and independent judgment creates risk, the incentive path is clear even if it was never stated.

The deeper issue is most operating models are built for execution, not judgment. Roles are scoped around deliverables, not decisions. So when something ambiguous surfaces, there's no natural owner and the path of least resistance runs upward.

If you want to break the cycle, start shifting your team from escalations to ownership. I've seen these operational changes make a difference:

1. Enforce an "Options" Rule: Require every escalated issue to include 1 clear problem statement, 3 viable options, and 1 recommended solution.

   
   

2. Clarify Decision Rights: Use a simple framework like RACI to explicitly state who owns the final decision, not just the task execution.

   
   

3. Reward Independent Judgment: Publicly praise team members who bring recommendations, even if the final choice requires minor adjustments.