Your 2027 Plan Needs Fewer Decisions at the Top

Find the decisions that keep coming back

October planning usually concentrates on revenue, investment and delivery commitments. A less visible question deserves equal attention: which decisions must change hands for the plan to work?

In a scale-up, the CEO often remains the default approver for pricing exceptions, senior customer commitments, product trade-offs and spending already covered by an approved budget. Each intervention may seem reasonable. Together, they create a business that cannot move without the chief executive.

The issue is not simply an overloaded calendar. Teams learn to wait. Executives negotiate for access rather than resolve competing priorities. Customers receive commitments that operations cannot reliably deliver.

The classic Harvard Business Review framework on small-business growth describes how managerial demands and organizational structures change as a company develops. The practical implication remains relevant: the leadership approach that supported one stage may constrain the next. ^[1]

This week, examine ten material decisions that reached the CEO during the past month. Record why each arrived there. Was it genuinely a matter of strategy or risk? Or did someone lack authority, information or confidence? Those are different problems. They require different responses.

Give one executive the final decision

Delegation fails when a leader receives responsibility without the authority to settle a trade-off.

Consider a commercial executive pursuing a major contract. Sales wants an exception to standard terms. Finance wants margin protection. Operations wants delivery certainty. If all three believe they hold a veto, the CEO becomes the permanent referee.

Before the next case arrives, define who makes the final decision, whose input is required and which constraints cannot be waived. Bain’s decision-role framework, published in HBR, separates recommending, providing input, agreeing, deciding and performing. Its central value is distinguishing participation from final authority. ^[2]

For recurring decisions, write a short decision agreement:

• Decision owner: The executive authorized to choose among acceptable options.
• Required input: The people and evidence that must inform the choice.
• Boundaries: Financial, legal, customer and operational limits.
• Escalation trigger: The specific condition that requires a higher-level decision.
• Review point: When the outcome will be examined and by whom.

For example, a commercial leader could approve contract exceptions within agreed margin and delivery limits. A proposed liability outside established policy would require legal review and escalation to the designated executive. The thresholds should reflect the company’s economics and obligations, not a generic delegation template.

This is not a license to bypass expertise. It is a way to stop expertise from becoming an undefined veto.

Test whether authority can survive disagreement

A document will not change behavior if the CEO routinely reopens decisions after a private conversation with a dissatisfied colleague.

That pattern teaches executives that formal authority is provisional. The real process becomes lobbying after the meeting. Accountability then weakens: the named owner carries the outcome but did not control the choice.

Delegated authority should survive ordinary disagreement. It should not survive concealed facts, breached limits or material new evidence. Make that distinction explicit.

Research reported in HBR on conflict within management teams found that constructive disagreement involved practices such as focusing on facts, considering alternatives and maintaining common goals. The aim is not less debate. It is debate that improves decisions without turning differences into personal conflict. ^[3]

A practical test is to ask each executive separately: “Which decisions can you make that the CEO might dislike but will still support?” If nobody can answer, delegation is probably nominal.

The CEO also needs a discipline: when an escalation arrives within someone else’s authority, return it with a clear question. “What is your decision, and what evidence supports it?” Do not silently take ownership back.

Make decision rights part of the 2027 review

Before approving the operating plan, review the few recurring decisions most likely to delay execution or expose the business to material risk.

Start with decisions that cross functions: customer exceptions, product priorities, spending reallocations and delivery commitments. Identify the owner and escalation boundary for each. Then test them against a plausible difficult case, not an easy one.

Boards should distinguish matters reserved for board approval from those delegated to management. They should also ask whether management’s own decision rights support the strategy. Oversight should clarify accountability, not add another approval layer to routine operations.

Track elapsed decision time, repeated escalations and reversals caused by missing information. Use these as process diagnostics, not individual league tables. A slow decision may reflect a necessary safeguard; a fast one may conceal inadequate review.

The objective is not maximum speed. It is sound decisions made at the appropriate level, with consequences visible afterward. A credible 2027 plan should show not only what the business intends to achieve, but who has the authority to make it happen.