Technology
Executives
DEC

Growth Company Builds Decision Clarity and Execution Rhythm

Representative example of moving from entrepreneurial chaos to scalable operations

The situation

  • A fast-growing company struggled to maintain execution quality as headcount scaled
  • Decisions that founders once made quickly now stalled in ambiguous ownership
  • Teams worked hard but strategic priorities shifted faster than execution could follow

What broke

Why training alone wasn't enough:

  • Decision rights unclear as organization outgrew founding team's direct oversight
  • Meetings multiplied but decisions remained unmade or were revisited repeatedly
  • Cross-functional initiatives stalled waiting for unclear approvals
  • Leaders at all levels expressed frustration with 'lack of clarity'
  • Execution speed that defined early success had become a liability at scale

What we installed

The infrastructure that created lasting change:

  • Decision rights framework clarifying who decides, who advises, and who executes
  • Meeting architecture reducing redundancy and ensuring decisions stick
  • Strategic priority cadence with quarterly focus and monthly checkpoints
  • Cross-functional operating rhythm for initiatives requiring multiple teams
  • Escalation protocols preventing decisions from stalling in ambiguity

Reinforcement cadence

How we made behaviors stick:

  • Weekly leadership sync focused on decision bottlenecks and escalations
  • Monthly strategic priority check-ins with adjustment protocols
  • Quarterly planning rhythm with explicit decision rights review
  • Annual operating rhythm assessment and refinement

Early wins

Typical progress indicators at each milestone

30 Days

  • Early indicators: decision rights framework documented and communicated
  • Meeting architecture redesign implemented across leadership team

60 Days

  • Typical outcomes: decision velocity increasing on previously-stalled initiatives
  • Escalation protocols used effectively to resolve ambiguous situations

90 Days

  • Representative results: strategic priorities maintained with reduced mid-quarter pivots
  • Leadership team feedback indicating improved clarity and reduced frustration

What we learned

  • What works at 50 people breaks at 200-infrastructure must evolve with scale.
  • Decision clarity is a leadership behavior, not just a structural fix.
  • The escalation protocol was unexpectedly valuable; it gave permission to surface issues early.

The guiding shift

  • Less fixing, more guiding
  • Less control, more clarity
  • More ownership from teams

This example represents typical outcomes from similar engagements. Your results will depend on your organization's context, commitment, and willingness to install and maintain leadership infrastructure.

Could this work for you?

Let's discuss what realistic outcomes might look like for your specific situation.