Leadership team members frequently add items to the Level 10 Meeting Issues List just to get consensus or permission for decisions that belong squarely in their own seat. How do we stop this consensus-seeking waste?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Consensus-seeking is a major drain on leadership team productivity. When an executive puts an operational decision on the Issues List simply to get everyone to nod their head, they are usually trying to diffuse personal accountability. If the decision goes wrong later, they can claim the entire leadership team approved it.

A company running on EOS® is not a democracy. It is a team of accountable leaders where each seat on the Accountability Chart has clear Roles and Responsibilities. If a leader has the GWC (Gets It, Wants It, Capacity to Do It) for their seat, they are expected to make decisions within their domain without calling a committee meeting.

When an issue of this nature is raised during the Level 10 Meeting, the Integrator must step in immediately with this protocol:

- Check the Accountability Chart: Ask who owns the seat responsible for this outcome. If the answer is clear, look at that leader and ask why this is on the leadership team agenda.
- Ask for a proposal, not a debate: If the leader needs input from peers because the decision touches other functions, require them to state their recommendation in one minute. Peers can provide brief data points, but the seat owner makes the final call.
- Refuse to vote: The Integrator must never call for a group vote on seat-specific decisions. Explicitly state that the owner of the seat has full authority and responsibility to execute the decision.

Pushing decisions back to individual seats cuts twenty to thirty minutes of unnecessary debate out of IDS every week.