In partnership with
Read time: 3.6 min.
TOGETHER WITH DEEPVIEW
Become An AI Expert In Just 5 Minutes
If you’re a decision maker at your company, you need to be on the bleeding edge of, well, everything. But before you go signing up for seminars, conferences, lunch ‘n learns, and all that jazz, just know there’s a far better (and simpler) way: Subscribing to The Deep View.
This daily newsletter condenses everything you need to know about the latest and greatest AI developments into a 5-minute read. Squeeze it into your morning coffee break and before you know it, you’ll be an expert too.
Subscribe right here. It’s totally free, wildly informative, and trusted by 600,000+ readers at Google, Meta, Microsoft, and beyond.
{{First Name | My friend}},
You’ve heard it before. You’ve probably even said it yourself.
“We aligned on this already… so why is it back?”
When a healthcare COO said it, he didn’t sound frustrated. Just precise.
A few weeks earlier, the executive team at the hospital had agreed to expand surgical capacity. This meant additional blocks and extended hours.
This was a necessary move to reduce backlog and improve patient access.
The rationale was sound. The direction was clear. It wasn’t a small decision, and it wasn’t one they expected to revisit.
And yet, here it was again.
When a decision doesn’t stay closed
It didn’t return all at once.
In an operations review, questions surfaced around staffing coverage and scheduling capacity. In a clinical discussion, it showed up as whether the right physician specialties could support the expanded volume. In a finance conversation, it came back as margin pressure tied to extended hours.
Each time, the tone was steady, professional, and collaborative.
No one was pushing back on the decision.
And still, the same conversation kept returning.
It didn’t feel like confusion.
It felt like something unfinished.
What’s actually happening
At first glance, it’s easy to assume the issue is clarity.
Maybe something wasn’t communicated well. Maybe alignment wasn’t as strong as it seemed. Maybe the decision needs to be restated more clearly so everyone moves forward in the same direction.
But that’s rarely what’s driving it.
The decision was clear.
What wasn’t clear was how the tradeoffs would be handled once the work began.
Because every decision like this moves more than one variable at once.
Expanding surgical capacity increases access, but it also stretches staffing models. Faster throughput improves patient flow, but it introduces pressure on clinical teams already operating near capacity. Extended hours support revenue and outcomes, but they change cost structures in ways that don’t stay contained.
The gains are visible in the room.
The costs tend to show up in execution.
Where decisions stay open
This is the part that often goes unexamined.
When the team aligned on expanding capacity, they acknowledged the benefits. They may have even named some of the tradeoffs in passing. But they didn’t fully resolve them.
No one answered, with precision:
What gives to create this capacity?
Where will the strain show up first?
Who carries it when it does?
Without those answers, something subtle happens.
The decision sounds closed.
But structurally, it’s still open.
Why the conversation returns
As execution unfolds, each leader begins to encounter the cost from their own vantage point.
The COO sees pressure building in staffing models and scheduling flexibility. The clinical leader sees the impact on physician coverage and fatigue across specialties. The CFO sees margin sensitivity starting to tighten as extended hours take shape.
Each perspective is valid.
Each response is reasonable.
But each is working a different part of the cost. So the decision comes back.
Not because anyone disagrees.
Because the system is still trying to resolve what was left open.
While repetition can create inefficiency, it is often a signal.
What this does to execution
What makes this nuanced is that nothing stops.
The work continues. Schedules are drafted. Teams adjust. Early steps are taken to move the decision forward across the system.
But the path isn’t clean.
Timelines shift in small increments as constraints become clearer. Coordination increases as leaders align on implications that weren’t fully resolved at the start. Meetings start to serve a second purpose, not just advancing the work, but stabilizing the decision itself.
No one calls it out directly.
But more effort is required to keep the decision in place.
That effort has a cost.
And it shows up as slower execution.
A clearer way to see it
If a decision keeps coming back, it’s likely not random.
It’s not necessarily a sign that the team lacks discipline.
And it’s not always a signal that the decision itself was wrong.
More often, it reflects that something in the tradeoffs wasn’t fully handled when the decision was made.
Decisions don’t stay settled because they were clearly articulated.
They stay settled because the cost of the decision has been made explicit and fully taken on.
Once that happens, something shifts.
The decision doesn’t need to be revisited in pieces.
It holds.
And when it holds, execution starts to move differently.
Until Next Sunday,
Shawnette Rochelle, MBA, PCC
Founder, Excellence Unbounded
Executive decision alignment for faster strategic execution
If you’re curious to learn more about my work with executive teams, you can find it here.
If you want to have a conversation to learn more, schedule it here.
