Early in a contested initiative, someone asks out loud which one person makes the final call and who only recommends or must agree, and once that is named the case goes where it counts.
An example
A medical-device company was debating whether to launch a new infusion pump first in Europe or in the United States, and the argument had gone through three steering meetings without progress. The program manager realized that regulatory affairs, marketing, and the regional presidents each assumed they had a veto. At the fourth meeting she asked who made the final call and who was there to recommend, to agree, or to give input. The room went silent until the general manager of the infusion business said the decision was hers, that regulatory had to agree on anything touching filings, and that everyone else was input. The program manager spent the next week with the general manager and the head of regulatory, going through launch costs and approval timelines. At the following meeting the general manager chose Europe first, with regulatory's sign-off on the filing schedule.
Why it works
Contested initiatives stall when nobody knows who decides, because every party assumes a veto and the sponsor has to persuade everyone at once. Asking aloud who holds the decision and who only recommends or must agree makes approval easier: the sponsor can concentrate on the one person who decides and the few who must agree, and everyone else's role becomes input. The decider has to be willing to be named, in an organization where roles can be settled by asking. It fails when the true answer is political and nobody will say it.
The thinking behind it
Marcia W. Blenko Rogers and Blenko's Who Has the D?: How Clear Decision Roles Enhance Organizational Performance (2006) gives each role in an important decision a letter: recommend, agree, perform, input, and decide. The holder of the D is the single point of accountability who commits the organization to action, and those with an agree role hold a veto that obliges them to offer an alternative or escalate. Asking the question aloud makes the roles explicit, which the authors argue removes decision bottlenecks.
When it fits
Cross-functional and cross-regional initiatives need it most: many people have an opinion and nobody has said who decides. The asker needs the standing to raise it in the room where roles can be settled, usually a steering meeting, and a senior person willing to answer. It is especially useful to a program manager without formal authority.
How to use it well
Ask the question early, in a meeting with the senior people present, and frame it as wanting to get the decision right. Use plain roles: who recommends, who must agree, who carries it out, who gives input, and the one person who decides.
- Write the answer down and send it around after the meeting for confirmation.
- Concentrate your case on the decider and on anyone with a right to agree.
- Give the people with input a real hearing, and tell them how it was used.
- If the roles change later, ask again.
If nobody will name the decider, take the question to the person the group reports to.
What it costs and where it backfires
Asking can embarrass a senior person who preferred to keep their role vague, and it can bring a hidden turf fight into the open. Some people will feel demoted when they learn they are input only. If the answer goes against you, a decider you hoped to avoid is now formally in charge. The question is clean as long as it is asked openly. Using it to cut out someone who has a real right to agree is the dirty form, and it will be challenged.
When it is used on you
Speak up at once if the answer to who decides leaves you as input when you thought you held a veto, give your reasons, and settle it before the decision. If you are only input, make it count: clear, early, in writing, and addressed to the decider.