Your team agreed. So why did momentum fade?

Read time: 3.8 min.

My friend,

In the years leading up to General Motors’ ignition-switch crisis, do you recall hearing that employees used a phrase to describe a familiar pattern in leadership meetings? They called it the “GM Nod.”

The nod happened when a group of executives agreed, in good faith, on a proposed plan or fix. Heads nodded. The conversation moved forward. Everyone left the room believing alignment had been reached.

And then… nothing happened.

Not because people disagreed. Not because they lacked information or concern. But because responsibility for acting became so spread across committees and functions that no one felt they had the authority to move.

Mary Barra later described it simply. People would nod in agreement, then leave the room and do very little.

What’s striking about the GM Nod is how ordinary it feels. You’ve likely seen some version of it. It may look like a decision that seemed solid in the moment that suddenly begins to lose energy. You know the signs. Follow-through depends on reminders. Accountability feels assumed rather than held.

The decision exists, but ownership never fully takes root.

What’s really happening

When this dynamic shows up in your organization, it’s tempting to explain it through structure.

You might point to process gaps. Competing priorities. Capacity constraints. Governance complexity. All of those may be present. But they don’t fully explain why momentum fades after agreement.

What often happens is quieter and more specific.

Once the meeting ends, the clarity that existed in the room begins to thin. Not because the decision was wrong, but because decision ownership was never fully established. Authority becomes less visible. Boundaries blur. Signals about who is expected to lead the work forward are no longer explicit.

In that absence, a subtle shift takes place.

People don’t resist the decision. They stop leading it.

Without clear ownership, initiative moves from being actively championed to passively supported. Leaders who might otherwise drive the work forward wait for reinforcement, confirmation, or direction. Agency gives way to follow-through. Momentum depends on reminders rather than conviction.

The decision still exists. The intent is still there. But without someone clearly holding it, the work begins to move by compliance instead of leadership.

This is how decisions that made sense in the room begin to feel fragile in motion.

Why this shows up after strategy is approved

Ownership gaps rarely appear during strategy discussions.

In the room, alignment feels strong. The language is shared. The intent is clear. Agreement is visible. It’s easy to assume that clarity will carry forward on its own.

But alignment is not ownership. Consensus is not commitment. And agreement is not authority.

Those distinctions only become visible once pressure re-enters the system.

As execution unfolds, tradeoffs appear. Priorities compete. New information surfaces. Decisions need to be upheld, not just remembered. That’s when progress begins to rely on reminders, escalation, or the same few people pushing again and again.

The work doesn’t stop. But it takes more effort than it should. Leadership energy concentrates instead of distributing. Progress slows without pushback or objection, which makes it difficult to see what, exactly, needs to be addressed.

From the outside, it can look like an execution problem. From the inside, it often feels like something just isn’t holding.

The stalled initiative check

Rather than simply noticing this dynamic, it can be useful to locate where it’s already operating in your organization.

As you reflect, consider the following:

• Where do decisions exist, but ownership feels assumed rather than explicit?

• Which initiatives rely on reminders or reinforcement instead of clear leadership ownership?

• After key decisions are made, where do your people feel authorized to act—and where do they find themselves waiting?

• Where has progress slowed not because of resistance, but because no one is clearly championing the work?

These are often the places where leadership effort increases, even as momentum fades.

A final thought to carry with you

Ownership gaps don’t announce themselves. They reveal themselves quietly, in what moves easily and what does not.

When you begin to pay attention to what happens after agreement—once the room empties and pressure returns—you start to see decisions differently. Not as fixed points, but as commitments that require someone to actively carry them forward.

That awareness alone can change how decisions are held, long before execution ever becomes the focus.

Until Next Sunday,

Shawnette Rochelle, MBA, PCC
Founder, Excellence Unbounded
Executive alignment and decision clarity

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