Read time: 2.6 min.

{{First Name | My friend}},

You’ve seen this happen.

A decision is made. The debate is thoughtful. The logic holds. Someone summarizes the conclusion. Heads nod. A few people say, “That feels right.” The slide is updated. The meeting moves on.

Two weeks later, the decision is back. Not as opposition. As refinement.

“Before we get too far, can we revisit this for a minute?”

“I’m still supportive — I just want to make sure we’ve pressure-tested it.”

“Given what’s shifted…”

The tone is calm, collaborative, and professional. And yet the decision feels less settled than it did the first time.

Not because new criteria were triggered or because the tradeoffs materially changed.

But because it’s quietly open again.

This isn’t about refusing to adapt. Strong teams revisit decisions when defined conditions are met. They recalibrate when the facts demand it.

But this is different.

When a decision keeps coming back like this, it’s rarely about disagreement.

These behaviors reveal that ownership wasn’t fully established.

Ownership doesn’t just mean someone’s name was attached to the slide. It means someone carries the decision when it gets tested. It means the tradeoffs weren’t just acknowledged — they were absorbed.

It means the downside doesn’t drift back to the room the moment it becomes real.

When that doesn’t happen, something subtle begins to form: Avoidance.

I’m not talking about dramatic avoidance.

I’m talking the kind that is measured and sounds like responsible leadership.

It shows up as clarification, pressure-testing, and/or a desire to “be thorough.”

No one is trying to derail the decision. No one is trying to resist it.

But the person who originally owned it starts explaining it again. Others add nuance that wasn’t raised before. Someone interjects to ask whether the timeline still holds.

The decision that once felt directional now feels adjustable.

And slowly, the room becomes the stabilizer.

This is how avoidance forms in high-functioning teams.

It doesn’t begin with conflict. It begins with shared buffering.

The tradeoffs were understood, but no one fully carried them forward.

So when the cost becomes tangible — slower growth, tighter margins, frustrated teams — the discomfort doesn’t land in one place.

It diffuses.

And diffused discomfort seeks reassurance.

So the decision returns.

Over time, this behavior can become routine.

The team tells itself they are being adaptive. Thoughtful. Collaborative.

Meetings stay polite. No one is escalating or visibly resisting.

But decisions start to require repeated reinforcement.

Owners clarify instead of advance.

Energy goes into re-securing alignment rather than moving the work forward.

Nothing is collapsing, but nothing is progressing either.

And because this pattern feels reasonable, it’s rarely named.

So, the next time a decision comes back to the room, pause before re-engaging the debate.

Ask yourself:

Was ownership truly established when we made this decision — or did we simply agree?

Did we define what would cause us to reopen it?

Or are we redistributing the weight now that it feels heavier?

Remember, this isn’t about rigidity.

Clear ownership doesn’t prevent adaptation. What it prevents is unnecessary renegotiation.

And that distinction is what keeps strong teams from quietly normalizing avoidance.

Until Next Sunday,

Shawnette Rochelle, MBA, PCC
Founder, Excellence Unbounded
Decision Alignment for Executive Teams

If you’re curious to learn more about my work with executive teams, you can find it here.