Leadership Impact On Decision Making

Many senior leaders have a strong "do now" mentality. They want to "move fast", "take action", and "just try it". While this has proven successful in environments with high variability and low data (e.g. startups), it often backfires in situations that require complex decision-making or big organizational shifts. When "do now" is overly valued: 😓 Large reorgs turn messy and set the company back for quarters if not years. 😓 Teams experience constant churn and low ROI from launches, jumping from idea to idea too quickly. 😓 Underinvestment in first-order-negative-but-second-order-positive competitive differentiators, leading to a lack of long-term defensive moats. It turns out that many complex challenges that organizations and teams face today benefit from deep thinking first. To bring this balance into your organization, try the following: ✅ Work with leaders who prefer to "Think Deeply First", and be compassionate about their slower approach to decision-making. ✅ Invest time in debating alternatives, weighing various risks, or making sure everyone's opinions are heard. ✅ Open up your decision-making to a diverse team and take the time to truly hear feedback. Remember, when your "do now" clashes with another trusted leader's "think first", take a step back and consider whether a slower and more considered approach will have outsized benefit in the long term. ----- 👋 Hi! I'm Yue. I am a Chief Product and Technology Officer turned Executive Coach. I help women and minority aspiring executives break through to the C-suite. 🚀  🔔 Follow me for more content on coaching, leadership, and career growth.

One of the hardest decisions for any leader is deciding whether to coach a struggling employee or let them go. It’s rare that the answer feels perfectly clear. And it’s a heavy decision, both because of the impact on the individual and also because of the potential consequences for the company. Over time, I realized that I needed a clear, unbiased way to make a timely decision in these situations, so I developed a framework called CORVETT (because you know I love an acronym). It’s a guide to help clarify those tough calls and avoid emotional, knee-jerk reactions that could be costly—for the employee and the company. Below are the questions that it's helpful for a leader to ask. The idea is simple: if you can say "yes" to most of these, it’s a signal to invest in coaching someone. If not, it may be time to part ways. C – Contrition: Does the person recognize that what they’ve done (or not done) is a problem and are they willing to change? Without this, there’s no foundation to move forward. O – Ownership: Will they take responsibility for owning their improvements? Even if they need support, which is often the case, it’s important they feel a sense of ownership for their development path. R – Repetition: Have they been able to fix this problem without a lot of repetition? If people keep repeating the same problematic behavior then it’s a sign they may not be able to learn and grow. V – Values: Is there a match in core values? Skills can be coached, but values are tough to change. E – Expectations: As a manager, did I fail to properly set clear expectations or give them sufficient support? If I didn’t, then it’s on me to reset and give them a fair shot. T – Talents: Does this role align with their natural talents and strengths? Sometimes, it’s not about performance—it’s about the role being a poor fit. (And in these examples, moving someone to a different role may be a good solution.) T – Timing: Can this wait? Or is it time-sensitive based on impact? Sometimes, you just need results now, and there isn’t the luxury of a long development timeline. When we procrastinate on these decisions, we’re not doing anyone any favors. It’s in everyone's best interest to get to a solution quickly where people can be happy and successful in their jobs, and deliver what their company needs. Having a framework to make these decisions as intentionally and with as little bias as possible can help leaders be confident that they are doing right by their teams and their companies. Also, this framework isn’t just for managers. If we’re struggling at work, we can ask ourselves these questions to help set ourselves up for success: Am I taking ownership of my performance? Am I in a role that aligns with my natural talents? Have I made sure I understand the expectations from my manager, etc.? Using the CORVETT framework can help us ensure our own success as well. #Leadership #TeamBuilding #ManagementTips

As Duarte grew, I’d hear feedback that decisions were made too slowly, which confused me. In reality, we didn’t have a system to recognize when the team was asking for a decision. We thought they were just informing us, so decisions would languish. We weren’t ignoring them, failing to act, or even making incorrect decisions... We just didn’t realize a decision needed to be made in the first place. It dawned on the exec team that the lack of clarity during the conversation is what slows teams down. Leaders and teams can share the same language for decision-making. Much of it is about shaping recommendations that actually lead to the right type of action and making the urgency clear. Here’s the shift that changed everything… We started mapping every decision against two factors: urgency and risk. Low risk, low urgency: Decide without me. Your team runs with it. Low risk, high urgency: Inform on progress. They update you, but keep driving. High risk, low urgency: Propose for approval. They bring a recommendation, and you decide together. High risk, high urgency: Escalate immediately. You're in it together, right now. Once my team understood which quadrant a decision lived in, they knew exactly how to approach me. And I knew exactly what my role was. The framework gave us a shared language. People can’t act on ideas if they don’t understand how decisions are made. Leaders should define how recommendations move from idea to approval to action. That transparency keeps progress from stalling. Remember: One of the biggest threats to your company isn't a lack of good ideas. It's a lack of clarity. #Leadership #ExecutiveLeadership #OrganizationalCulture #DecisionMaking

I once saw a VP of Engineering roll up his sleeves during a P0 outage, and it completely redefined leadership for me.  It was a high-stakes moment.  A major sales event, our big billion sale was happening for the whole of Indonesia. Millions of users and a critical service had just crashed.  The engineering team was already in the trenches, deep into debugging. I was working alongside them. And then, in walks the VP.   Not to demand updates.   Not to assign blame.   But to dive into the logs,  tracing issues alongside the team.  No one expected it.   He had every reason to step back,  and let the engineers handle it.   But he didn’t.  That day, there were no titles across our office,  everyone was just another problem-solver.  Here’s what I learned: ► In a crisis, true leaders show up.   — They don’t hover from a distance, they get involved.   — They clear roadblocks.   — They lead by example.  ► But outside of a crisis, true leaders step back.   — They build trust.   — They give teams space.   — They empower others to shine.  Some leaders focus on control when everything is smooth but go missing when real challenges arise. Great leaders do the opposite. They trust their teams to build without interfering, but when chaos hits, they’re right there, helping clear the path. So next time you’re in a tough spot, ask yourself:   Are you helping solve the problem, or are you just watching it get worse?

In March 2020, Marriott was collapsing. Its CEO, Arne Sorenson, was battling cancer. What he did next redefined leadership accountability: Most leaders think accountability means consequences. When performance drops, they tighten control. When projects fail, they add oversight. When mistakes happen, they hunt for someone to blame. Then they wonder why their best people leave. March 2020. Marriott faces the worst crisis in 100 years. Hotels are shuttering. Thousands face furlough. And Arne Sorenson is undergoing cancer treatment. Most CEOs would’ve delegated the message. Sent a memo. Protected themselves. Not Sorenson. He sat in front of a camera, hair thinned, visibly weakened, and spoke directly to Marriott’s global team. He delivered the hard news. Took full accountability. Announced he and Bill Marriott would take no salary. The executive team? 50% pay cuts. Employees didn’t just hear the message. They felt it. Many returned when the company recovered, despite every reason not to. Why? Because Sorenson understood: Accountability isn't about blame. It's about ownership. Fear-based accountability focuses on control. Ownership-based accountability builds commitment. The difference shows up in a crisis: • Fear-based cultures protect themselves. • Ownership-based cultures protect the mission. Here’s what Sorenson did that most leaders don’t: He chose truth over spin. No euphemisms. No sugarcoating. He trusted people with the reality and gave them a plan. He made sacrifice visible. Pay cuts weren’t a cost-saving tactic. They were a statement: Leaders go first. That’s how you earn the right to ask others to follow. He gave teams control. Instead of dictating execution, he co-created solutions. People commit more when they help design the path forward. The result? Even under pressure, Marriott stayed aligned, committed, and resilient. Here’s the shift most leaders miss: Traditional accountability enforces standards. Transformational accountability builds capability. One makes people cautious. The other makes them better. Want more research-backed insights on leadership? Join 11,000+ leaders who get our weekly newsletter: 👉 https://lnkd.in/en9vxeNk

Culture is one of the strongest predictors of whether great people stay or go. Stronger than compensation. Stronger than perks. For a long time, culture felt negotiable. Talent had fewer options, and leaders could afford to look the other way. That era is over. Today, culture is experienced in real time, through decisions, behavior, and follow-through. When I’m asked to consult with leadership teams, the most revealing question I ask isn't "What do you value?" It's "What do you tolerate?" Because culture lives in the gap between intention and action. A leadership team might believe transparency matters. But when a decision contradicts that belief, people notice. Not emotionally. Practically. They observe how decisions are made, even when leaders aren't in the room. They study who gets rewarded. They pay attention to what's ignored. Every moment of tolerance sends a signal. Every signal shapes who feels they belong. Every choice builds the company you'll be leading five years from now. Culture isn't a side effect of growth. It's one of the most powerful tools leaders have to earn trust, retain talent, and build companies people want to help win. And the good news is this: It's always a choice. Motto®

Have you worked with someone who shifts blame when things go wrong? Or someone who takes credit for success but vanishes when challenges arise? Frustrating, right? Great leaders don’t pass the buck. They own their role, decisions, and outcomes. No excuses, no finger-pointing. Taking responsibility involves commitment to results, people, doing what’s right even when it’s hard. When leaders embrace this mindset: - Teams trust them - Work feels meaningful - Growth happens individually and collectively So, how do you embody this? 5 ways to lead with accountability: 1. Admit missteps. Perfection is a myth. Address errors head-on, find solutions, and move forward. 2. Be transparent. Keep everyone informed, not just when things are good. Clarity builds confidence. 3. Delegate with trust. Give people ownership, not just tasks. They’ll rise to the occasion when they feel empowered. 4 Set the standard. Work ethic isn’t spoken, it’s shown. Actions always outweigh words. 5 Acknowledge effort. Wins aren’t milestones alone, they drive people. Celebrate progress and recognize contributions. Accountability involves inspiring people to take ownership at every level. Remember this as you go through this week.

Teams often implement solutions that do not fix the problem they were trying to address. That's because the issue wasn’t framed correctly in the first place. This is especially true in complex or unfamiliar situations, where quick conclusions feel comforting but are often wrong. When I work with teams on decision-making, I turn to a framework developed by Julia Binder and Michael Watkins. Their E5 approach helps leaders define the right problem before trying to solve it. Phase 1: EXPAND Suspend early judgments and deliberately broaden how the challenge is understood. By exploring multiple interpretations of the issue, teams uncover hidden assumptions, surface blind spots, and create the conditions for more original thinking before jumping to answers. Phase 2: EXAMINE Shift from scope to depth. Teams analyze the problem rigorously, moving beyond visible symptoms to identify behavioral patterns, structural drivers, and underlying beliefs that reveal what is truly at play. Phase 3: EMPATHIZE Center on the perspectives of those most affected by the issue. Through (real) listening and reflection, teams gain insight into stakeholders’ motivations, emotions, concerns, and behaviors, often uncovering needs that data alone cannot reveal. Phase 4: ELEVATE Step back to see how it fits within the broader organization. Viewing the challenge through lenses such as structure, people, power, and culture exposes interdependencies and systemic tensions that shape outcomes. Phase 5: ENVISION Articulate a clear future state and map a path to reach it. Working backward from a shared definition of success, teams prioritize initiatives, sequence efforts, and align resources to move from understanding to execution. I've found that when leaders take the time to frame problems well, they increase the likelihood that those solutions will actually matter. #decisionMaking #leadership #perspective #learning #problems Source: The model is described in more details in this Harvard Business Review article: https://lnkd.in/gAeBb5uT

Every B2B sales and marketing leader knows that ICP is paramount.   But many miss the mark. Too often, companies conflate their TAM (great for your VC pitch deck) with their ICP (foundational for sales and marketing effectiveness).   They define the boundaries.   But they need to define the center of the bullseye -- who they serve best.   This requires a vivid description.   That doesn't mean a longer list of firmographic filters. Instead it's a careful articulation of the best customer -- precise business types, in clear situations, with specific problems. The vivid description makes it understandable and actionable outside of the board room.   Next it requires translation.   The ideal customer profile becomes the ideal customer model. Translation takes data and math. Good translation enables sales and marketing to organize around, and focus on, their best-fit accounts.   The exercise is CXO relevant.   But the best insights and input come from the frontlines. The reps with the most customer exposure can intuit the answers. Leaders should hear those insights and mix them with the founder's market insight. Ideally there is a single thread from CEO to SDR.   I spend a lot of time working on ICPs, but I'm sure my framework is incomplete.   What other principles would you include?     #b2b #sales #marketing

Throughout my career, I've witnessed how limiting narrow leadership perspectives can be—and why truly transformative organizations must challenge their own blind spots, especially when it comes to gender diversity in top leadership positions. The numbers don't lie. In the UK's top 100 companies: -Only 9 women hold FTSE 100 CEO positions -Women represent just 32% of leadership roles -Merely 12 companies have achieved gender parity in senior leadership We need 5.6x more women CEOs to reflect the UK's population. But this isn't just about numbers; it's about untapped potential. Companies with diverse leadership are: -More profitable -More socially responsible -Deliver higher-quality customer experiences Key Bottlenecks: -Women are severely underrepresented in P&L leadership -Traditional CEO feeder roles remain male-dominated -Succession pipelines continue to perpetuate existing imbalances No organization achieves greatness by maintaining the status quo. Our legacy as leaders will be defined by the opportunities we create for those who have been systematically overlooked. Learn more: https://bit.ly/4gGhNqV #WomenInLeadership #GenderDiversity #RRAArtemis