"Don't make me cry."
That's what my friend a comms lead at an education non profit said when I asked her about the logo redesign.
Not because she was overwhelmed with work. Not because the brief was complicated.
Because nine months in, the project was still going nowhere and she knew exactly why.
She and her team had spent months selecting an agency. Then the Founder overruled the decision and handed it to the internal team instead. Now the logo and brand identity were being shaped by everyone from board members to junior staff.
Everyone had a voice. Nobody had authority.
My friend whose job it was to lead communications was reduced to watching the chaos, powerless to stop it.
From the outside, it looked like an inclusive culture.
Everyone's input was welcomed. No one was shut out. The founder kept the door open to every perspective.
But here's what was actually happening:
The founder wasn't being democratic. They were avoiding conflict.
There's a difference and it matters enormously.
A genuinely inclusive leader decides who has input on what, and when the input window closes. They separate consultation from decision-making. They protect their team's time and sanity by being clear about what's actually up for debate.
A conflict-avoidant leader keeps the door open indefinitely, not because they value everyone's perspective, but because closing it means disappointing someone. Saying no. Taking a position that someone might push back on.
So the meeting happens again. And again. Another round of feedback. Another revision. Another stakeholder who hasn't weighed in yet.
Until finally when the paralysis becomes unbearable the founder steps in and decides unilaterally anyway.
Which is the most corrosive move of all because now the team has experienced the worst of both worlds: all the slowness of consensus, with none of the safety of it.
I've seen the alternative up close too.
A few years back at another organisation, a brand refresh came up. The founder and I worked directly with a positioning consultant and a designer. We sought input. We made decisions. We moved. The project got done.
Same complexity. Different belief about what leadership requires.
Today's Permission Slip:
You have permission to close the input window even when it feels uncomfortable to do so.
Inclusive leadership doesn't mean everyone votes on everything. It means people are heard at the right moment, by the right person, for the right decision.
When you blur that line, when you let "everyone has a voice" become a substitute for "someone has to decide", you're protecting yourself from the discomfort of using your authority.
And sometimes like my friend, your Comms lead pays the price.
The Practice:
For any project currently stalled, ask three questions:
- Who actually owns this decision?
- Has that person been given genuine authority or just the appearance of it?
- What are you avoiding by keeping the input window open?
The answer to that third question is usually where the real work begins.
This Week's Question:
Where in your organisation is "we're still gathering input" actually code for "I don't want to be the one who decides"?
Here's to leading differently,
Raghav
P.S. My friend the Comms lead is good at her job. The problem was never her capability, it was that her authority kept getting quietly borrowed by everyone else. Sound familiar? Hit reply.
P.P.S. Know a leader who could do with hearing this? Forward this to them. They can subscribe here.
