An Approval Email Revealed That Nobody Owns the Decision

When teams change faster than decision-making structures, even simple approvals get complicated.

I needed approval for a production release.

A routine request. Or so I thought.

I opened an email and started typing names into the To field. Then I paused.

The previous manager had handed off responsibility. The new manager was still onboarding. Another manager had a strong interest in the work. The portfolio manager needed visibility.

Should I include the director, too?

I sent the email. No response.

After I followed up, the replies started coming — but instead of an approval, it turned into a game of tag. One manager brought in another for their opinion. That person tagged someone else. More managers and directors joined the thread. The recipient list kept growing.

More people were involved. But nobody was making the decision.

When Responsibilities Change, Decision Ownership Can Get Lost

I've seen this happen as organizations evolve, especially during large transformation initiatives.

Teams expand. New leaders join. Responsibilities shift. Work moves between groups. We spend a lot of time managing those transitions: onboarding people, transferring knowledge, updating plans, and clarifying responsibilities.

But one important question can get overlooked: who actually has the authority to make the decisions now?

A successful handoff of work doesn't necessarily mean decision authority has transferred with it. And when that authority is unclear, even small approvals can stall.

More Stakeholders Won't Always Solve the Problem

When a decision gets stuck, it's tempting to involve more people — add another manager, schedule another meeting, ask one more stakeholder for input.

Sometimes that's necessary. But sometimes we're confusing having input with owning the decision.

Different roles, different stakes

• A technical lead may need to confirm readiness.
• An operations manager may need to assess the impact.
• A portfolio leader may need visibility.

But who is accountable for saying yes or no? Without that distinction, we can end up with a room full of people contributing opinions and nobody making the call.

Key takeaway: Expanding the conversation doesn't resolve a stuck decision — it often deepens the confusion. The real question isn't who should be involved, but who owns the outcome.

What to Do Differently

When a decision keeps getting passed from person to person, stop expanding the conversation. Instead, clarify three things:

Three clarifying questions

1. Who owns the decision?
   Who has the authority to approve, reject, or defer it?
2. Whose input is actually required?
   What information or assessment does the decision owner need before making the call?
3. Who simply needs to be informed?
   Who needs visibility without becoming another approval gate?

If the decision owner isn't clear, that's the issue to raise directly — rather than continuing to chase responses.

Because the problem isn't always that people are slow to respond. Sometimes the decision-making structure itself is unclear.

The Bigger Lesson

As project managers, we're often the ones coordinating across teams and keeping things moving. But our value isn't just in getting the right people into the conversation.

It's also in recognizing when the conversation isn't producing a decision — and helping clarify what needs to change.

That's how we move from coordinating work to shaping decisions.

Try this: The next time an approval email keeps getting forwarded, ask yourself: are we waiting for more input, or are we missing a clear decision owner? Don't wait for clarity to appear — create it.