Long, highly animated meetings that end without any real decision? Does that sound familiar?

It is a situation I observe very frequently in the organisations I work with.

People talk a lot.

Discussions can be rich, sometimes tense, sometimes dominated by one or two voices.

And yet, at the end of the meeting, there is no clear decision. No arbitration. No concrete next step.

When this happens repeatedly, it is rarely a simple facilitation issue. More often, it is the symptom of a deeper organisational dysfunction.

Behind meetings that fail to lead to decisions, I consistently see the same underlying patterns. Roles and responsibilities are unclear, which makes it difficult to know who is expected to decide. The decision-making framework is either absent or implicit, leaving room for ambiguity and avoidance. Disagreements remain unspoken because psychological safety is fragile, and people hesitate to express divergent views. As a result, “soft consensus” replaces clear arbitration, and decisions are postponed rather than made.

The impact on the organisation is far from neutral. Time and energy are wasted. Decisions are delayed or taken outside the collective. Teams gradually lose motivation, and trust in leadership and governance erodes. Over time, this directly affects performance, not because people lack competence, but because the system prevents effective action.

The good news is that there are simple and concrete levers to address this.

Effective meetings begin well before people enter the room. The objective of the meeting must be explicit: are we here to share information, to explore options, or to make a decision? This clarity alone changes the dynamics. It is equally essential to make decision rights explicit: who decides, on what, and according to which process. Without this, even the most constructive discussion will remain inconclusive.

Finally, decision-making requires a climate of psychological safety. People need to feel able to express disagreement without fear of negative consequences. Disagreement, when made visible and addressed, is not a threat to cohesion. It is a prerequisite for sound decisions.

Deciding does not mean everyone agrees.

Deciding means allowing disagreements to be expressed before arbitration, so that commitment can exist after the decision is made.

When meetings provide clarity, safety, and structure, they stop being exhausting rituals and become spaces where collective intelligence can actually lead to action.

If this situation resonates with your experience, I invite you to open the conversation. Together, we can identify the root causes of decision paralysis in your organisation and implement concrete levers to restore clarity, engagement, and effective decision-making.