Decision making under pressure — episode 2 — The table | FR

Lire en français

You remain at the table. But you no longer hold the deciding voice.

I. Arbitrating Is Not Deciding

Some words appear to describe a reality. They organise a different one.

Arbitrating has become, in the common vocabulary of corporate governance, the noble synonym for deciding. Executives are said to arbitrate — as though the word rendered the decision more measured, more balanced, more professional. It suggests the wisdom of the arbitrator between parties, the deliberation of someone who weighs before ruling. It is a flattering word. It is also a word that displaces.

Arbitrating presupposes options prepared by others. It presupposes a pre-existing conflict between already-formed positions, resources to be distributed among claimants, a scenario submitted for validation. The one who arbitrates receives a constituted file. He chooses from what is presented to him. His role begins where others’ work ends.

Deciding has none of these prerequisites. One decides without there necessarily being options on the table. One decides to launch, to close, to hire, to enter a market, to pivot — without anyone having prepared the corresponding file. A decision can be born from a conviction, a weak signal, a reading of the terrain that no one else has yet formalised. It can precede the options. It can disregard them. It carries an initiative: it does not select from variants.

When arbitrating is systematically substituted for deciding in the language of governance, something is quietly installed: a world in which the executive no longer creates — he chooses. He no longer sets the trajectory — he rules on routes that the functions have already mapped. He no longer leads — he validates. The shift is subtle. It is real. And it begins with a word.

That word is not alone.

II. The Vocabulary of Dilution

There exists in the contemporary vocabulary of corporate governance an entire lexicon that appears to organise cooperation. These words are modern, reasonable, inclusive. They promise less apparent conflict, more collective intelligence, shared responsibility. They are sincerely used by those who deploy them. And when deployed systematically, they organise something else.

Align — implying that no decision can be taken before all relevant actors have converged. Challenge — conferring on each internal perspective a right of criticism over the trajectory. Shared governance — distributing authority without distributing the corresponding mandate. Consensus — subordinating progress to the lowest common denominator of objections. Bring back to committee — reopening what had been closed.

Each of these words adds a right of review to someone who does not bear the corresponding responsibility. Collectively, they produce a particular regime — what might be called corporate democracy. Not healthy cooperation, not genuine contradiction, not real expertise placed at the service of a decision. Something else: a regime in which everyone bears on the trajectory without anyone holding the mandate, in which objections outweigh initiatives, in which collective prudence overrides individual commitment, in which the decision must earn the right to be taken in everyone’s eyes before being taken by the person charged with taking it.

A company is not a state. Its purpose is not to organise the general representation of internal interests. It needs information to rise, contradiction to be real, expertise to be honest, legal checks to operate — and a mandated authority to decide. When everything becomes collective arbitration, no one truly decides. But someone always blocks.

The cost of this regime is never presented in the same vocabulary as its promises. It is paid in slowness, in diluted strategies, in decisions endlessly reopened, in executive fatigue, in risks that no one ever dared to carry because no one had a clear mandate to do so.

III. You Remain at the Table

You are told this is mature governance. Everyone contributes. Every function challenges. Every risk is heard. Every voice counts. It is rich, collective, healthy. You remain at the centre.

Look more carefully.

As each person gains an implicit share of the decision, responsibility diffuses without truly being shared. Objections become more valuable than initiatives — a well-formulated objection protects the one who raises it, an initiative exposes the one who carries it. Prudence mechanically outweighs the mandate, because prudence is verifiable and ambition is contestable. You arbitrate fragments while the whole drifts.

You are still there. Your title is intact. You chair, you listen, you synthesise, you thank. But the real trajectory is decided elsewhere — not in a back room, not through conspiracy, but through the silent accumulation of constraints, precedents, produced reservations, circuits to be respected. It is not a coup. It is sedimentation. And sedimentation has no date.

When everyone has a say, the one who holds the mandate often ends up without the last word.

You remain at the table. But you no longer hold the deciding voice.

Participation can enrich a decision. It can also nationalise it. When each person gains a right of review, some end up exercising a right of veto. And the right of veto rarely belongs to the person bearing the responsibility — it belongs to the person best able to articulate the risk of not stopping.

IV. The Responsibility That Does Not Follow

This is where the mechanism reveals its true nature.

The executive marginalised by his own organisation may believe — or hope — that by letting the functions lead, by validating what is submitted to him, by waiting for consensus before advancing, he also shares the risk. That a decision widely validated internally is a decision whose responsibility is collectively borne. That the documented prudence of others constitutes real coverage.

It does not.

Executive responsibility does not dilute with the decision. It does not distribute proportionally to the seats occupied around the table. It is attached to the mandate, not to the power actually exercised. And the mandate remains whole — even when the power has emptied.

The more the organisation marginalises the executive, the more his legal, financial and personal liability remains tenacious — and in certain configurations, it grows. The executive who allows a trajectory to drift without correcting it may be held precisely for that inaction. The one who followed internal opinions without exercising his own judgment may not find in those opinions the shelter he believed. The one who did not constitute the evidence of his positive decisions will be read through the traces the functions produced in his name — and those traces were not constituted to defend him.

The situation is therefore structurally perverse: the more power the executive cedes, the more responsibility he retains. The more he allows the norm to govern in his place, the more exposed he remains to what the norm has produced without him.

V. He Cannot Resign

The temptation exists. When normative pressure is strong, when governance has grown heavier, when the table has filled to the point where the deciding voice no longer resonates, the idea may come to hand back the keys.

It meets a reality that the leadership vocabulary generally omits.

The executive of a company — especially when he is its founder, a significant shareholder, the carrier of the original vision — does not leave a position. He surrenders a mandate. And that surrender carries legal, financial and human consequences that nothing absorbs spontaneously. The personal commitments he has made do not disappear on the date of resignation. Proceedings already engaged or latent do not expire with the function. And the golden parachute — the contractual protection negotiated to secure the exit — can itself be challenged: on grounds of management fault, breach of mandate obligations, conduct whose traces exist precisely in the archives that no one governed.

One can change jobs. One does not easily leave what one has built. And when it is your creation, your trajectory, your personal risk committed over years, leaving is not an ordinary strategy — it is often a loss to which further exposure would be added.

He remains, therefore. Not always by constraint. Sometimes from genuine attachment to what he has committed. But in both cases, he remains in a situation for which the common vocabulary of governance has not provided him with an exact reading: caught between being crushed and resisting frontally, he believes he has only two poor choices — and does not see that a third exists.

VI. To Govern

Between capitulation and confrontation, there is authority.

Not authority as posture, as declaration of intent, as reminder of the organisation chart. Authority as practice: restoring the hierarchy of roles, requalifying real risks from imagined ones, shortening circuits, requiring options rather than blockages, distinguishing actual law from performed prudence, returning expertise to its proper place — which is a useful place, not a central one.

The norm does not act alone. It acts through those who carry it. Within the organisation, the law has no voice of its own: it borrows the voice of those who read it, interpret it, and give it weight. Those readers may be sensitive to the norm by personal disposition — natural caution, professional identity tied to risk. They may also have been sensitised by context — aggressive regulator, traumatic internal precedent, installed culture of fear. The distinction matters: in the first case, one steers a profile; in the second, one treats an organisation.

In both cases, what permits an exit from the trap is not better understanding of the norm. It is understanding that the norm is a vector of influence — and that this influence has a source, a carrier, a circuit. Recovering the lead means recovering mastery of that circuit. Not against the norm. Not against those who carry it. But by restoring each thing to its place: the norm illuminates, the function advises, the executive decides.

Counsel illuminates. The mandate decides.

This is not a slogan. It is a hierarchy. And a hierarchy is either exercised — or abandoned. There is no middle ground that holds over time.

When complexity starts to cost,

I help leaders keep business decisions moving under legal pressure.

Lead or Follow | Executive decisions under normative pressure | Dominique Owona-Atangana | substack.com/@dowonat