When Decisions Lose Authority

“If alignment is so clear in our meetings, why do decisions start drifting the moment the meeting ends?” 

This was the starting point of one of my team coaching sessions. The executive team was complete, including the CEO.

**********

What happened before? Picture this:

The meeting ends with a clear decision. Roles are acknowledged, next steps are mentioned, and no one explicitly disagrees. The discussion moves on with the implicit assumption that alignment has been reached.

In the weeks that follow, the decision does not collapse, but it does not fully hold either. Elements of it are adjusted in practice, not through formal review but through interpretation. Certain commitments are delayed. Some leaders execute only the parts that fit comfortably with their area. Others wait for additional signals before acting, unsure whether it is their responsibility to carry something. The CEO “allows” the people to do their job, and thus is on and off present during the implementation.

Nothing in the external context has changed enough to justify this drift. There is no new data, no sudden constraint, no unexpected event that would explain why the decision now requires reinterpretation.

What has changed is the point at which the decision begins to carry real consequences. Once execution introduces trade-offs, exposure, or loss of autonomy, alignment starts to erode quietly. Not through open disagreement, but through inaction, selective compliance, or informal renegotiation.

This pattern is often described as a communication problem or as insufficient alignment. In reality, the decision was understood. What was missing was the certainty that the decision would be upheld once it became uncomfortable.

This is not a failure of clarity. It is a signal about how authority and accountability actually operate beyond the meeting room.

Drift Is Not Confusion. It Is Permission

When decisions drift after leadership meetings where decisions were unanimous, the cause is rarely a lack of clarity. In most cases, the decision was understood well enough by everyone in the room.

What allows drift to occur is what leaders do not do next. Maybe they do not confront reinterpretation when it first appears. Or they do not name the moment when execution starts to diverge from what was decided. Or maybe they do not reassert the decision when consequences begin to feel uncomfortable. Ultimately, perhaps they do not keep themselves or one another accountable for following through.

Instead, they let the decision soften.

This softening is often justified internally as pragmatism. Pressure is high. Relationships matter. Escalation feels disproportionate. Yet every time a decision is allowed to be reshaped without being formally revisited, leadership signals that alignment is conditional.

Permission is created through omission, not declaration.

When leaders accept delayed execution without naming it as a deviation, delay becomes legitimate. When selective execution is tolerated because results are still delivered, partial compliance becomes acceptable. When a decision is reinterpreted in private conversations and not brought back to the leadership table, authority quietly fragments.

Drift is not resistance from below. It is the logical outcome of a leadership system that avoids enforcing its own decisions once they carry a cost.

The critical moment is the first instance when a leader notices divergence and chooses not to intervene. That moment teaches the system how seriously decisions should be taken outside the room.

From then on, drift no longer needs justification. It has been authorised.

As long as leadership teams treat this as a communication issue or a people problem, they will continue to reinforce the very behaviour they claim to want to eliminate.

Drift persists because leadership behaviour makes it safe.

Authority Ends Where Leadership Hesitates

Once a decision leaves the leadership table, authority depends entirely on leadership behaviour.

It depends on whether leaders treat the decision as settled or as something still open to negotiation when pressure appears. In many teams, that distinction is never made explicit. Leaders allow decisions to remain formally closed and practically open at the same time.

This is a leadership choice.

Authority weakens when leaders:

• accept exceptions without naming them as exceptions. 
• allow bilateral renegotiation instead of bringing issues back to the table. 
• protect relationships at the expense of the decision they collectively own.

These moments are rarely significant in themselves. They look reasonable. A delay here. A workaround there. A discussion that almost sounds like a favour. Yet together, they redefine how far authority actually reaches.

Authority does not end at the meeting room door. It ends at the first moment a leader notices deviation and chooses not to act.

From that point on, decisions are no longer binding. They are signals, suggestions, or starting points for negotiation. Leaders may still speak about alignment, but behaviour has already replaced authority with discretion.

This is not about being stricter or more controlling. It is about coherence.

When leaders do not stand behind decisions under pressure, authority becomes situational. And when authority is situational, execution cannot be stable.

Leadership teams that hesitate in these moments do not lose authority because others take it away.

They purely give it up.

Final Reflection. Where Authority Is Reclaimed or Lost.

When decisions drift in implementation, the reflex is often to look outward: at execution, at alignment, at others. Yet drift persists not because it belongs to someone else, but because it is collectively sustained and individually permitted.

Before a leadership team can address this pattern together, each leader must first examine their own role in it. Not in abstract terms, but in concrete moments where silence, hesitation, or accommodation replaced leadership.

C-level Individual self-reflection:

1. Where have I personally allowed a leadership decision to drift instead of addressing it directly?
   
   
2. Where did I notice a peer weakening a decision and choose not to challenge it at the leadership level?
   
   
3. Which exceptions have I accepted without being willing to defend them openly with my peers?
   
   
4. How have my own actions signalled that leadership decisions are open to reinterpretation under pressure?
   
   
5. In critical moments, have I acted as a co-owner of leadership decisions or as a cautious observer?
   
   

These questions surface something uncomfortable but essential: authority is not only lost through what the team does together, but through what individual leaders tolerate alone.

Once this individual responsibility is made visible, the conversation can shift to the level where authority is ultimately shaped — the leadership team itself.

C-level team reflection:

1. Which leadership decisions do we continue to call “aligned” even though we no longer treat them as binding in execution?
   
   
2. Where did we first notice implementation drifting from what was decided, and what did we choose not to address as a team?
   
   
3. Which decisions lose authority once they introduce discomfort, exposure, or trade-offs for the leadership group?
   
   
4. What leadership behaviours signal that decisions can be renegotiated outside the leadership table?
   
   
5. If this pattern of drift continues, what level of authority are we actually exercising as a leadership team?
   
   

Worked through together, these questions do more than diagnose misalignment. They make visible how authority is collectively reinforced or quietly withdrawn. In a team coaching context, they allow leadership teams to surface unspoken rules, test shared ownership of decisions, and rebuild coherence between what is decided and what is upheld.

The outcome is not tighter control or louder leadership, but something more demanding: a leadership team whose decisions carry weight beyond the meeting room, because authority is exercised consistently, even when it becomes uncomfortable.

That is where execution stops drifting and starts holding.

Until next time, may authority, clarity, and execution stay aligned.

Alina Florea
The Invisible Organisation