Abraham Sanieoff on What’s Really Slowing Down Your Team: Decision Friction and How to Eliminate It

Introduction

If your team is moving slower than it should, odds are it’s not a motivation issue — it’s a decision issue. Delays in progress often come down to the same underlying problem: decision friction.

People are unclear on who owns what, who has final say, and how decisions are supposed to be made in the first place.

Abraham Sanieoff sees this as one of the most common forms of operational drag. The challenge isn’t lack of strategy — it’s the absence of a structure that allows decisions to move forward quickly, confidently, and without confusion.

In this article, we explore how decision friction builds, what it costs, and how organizations can remove it without adding complexity.

Section 1: The Core Problem — Decision Ownership Gaps

In healthy teams, people know who’s in charge of moving something forward. In struggling teams, that’s usually unclear.

Decision ownership gaps show up when:

• Projects stall waiting for someone to sign off
• Team members hesitate because they’re unsure who to consult
• Approvals bounce around from person to person
• Leadership gets pulled into decisions that should be handled lower down

“If no one knows who’s supposed to own a decision, everyone waits — or worse, everyone acts at once.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

The result is slower progress, duplicated work, and avoidable mistakes. It becomes difficult to stay aligned, and impossible to move at speed.

Section 2: How These Gaps Form in the First Place

Decision friction isn’t created intentionally. It usually shows up as a side effect of growth.

Here’s how it tends to develop:

1. Roles Outgrow Responsibility

Job descriptions stay static while the scope of decisions evolves. What used to be a collaborative call now needs clearer ownership.

2. Fear of Making the Wrong Move

Without clear support from leadership, team members opt to wait rather than risk getting it wrong.

3. Group Decisions Without Clear Drivers

Multiple people are involved in input, but no one’s assigned to actually make the call. Projects enter a loop of opinions without closure.

4. Founders Stay in the Center

Even as the team grows, key decisions continue to funnel through one or two people at the top — whether it’s necessary or not.

These habits feel small at first, but over time they create operational drag that shows up everywhere: timelines, morale, and execution.

Section 3: The Organizational Cost of Decision Friction

When decisions stall, momentum disappears. And that loss of velocity spreads fast.

Some of the downstream effects include:

• Extended project timelines
• Frustration among high-performers
• More meetings with fewer outcomes
• Overload on leadership to clarify small items
• Slow reaction times to new information

“The longer a team waits on a decision, the harder it becomes to make one — because confidence erodes in the process.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

This isn’t just about speed — it’s about clarity. A lack of decision structure forces teams to work around problems instead of through them.

Section 4: Why Meetings Don’t Solve the Issue

One of the default responses to decision slowdowns is to call more meetings — syncs, working sessions, or check-ins.

But meetings alone won’t fix this problem. In fact, they often make it worse by widening the circle of input without clarifying ownership.

Red flags that you’re compensating with meetings:

• Decisions are re-discussed more than once
• No clear outcome is documented afterward
• Participants leave unsure of who owns next steps
• People who aren't directly involved are included “just in case”

“Meetings without ownership just create more noise around the same unresolved issue.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

Fixing this means reducing reliance on consensus and increasing clarity around who’s making which types of decisions — and how.

Section 5: Why Teams Struggle to Define Ownership

In many cases, it’s not that leaders don’t want to define ownership — it’s that doing so feels political, messy, or confrontational.

So instead, teams default to collaborative decision-making in the hopes of keeping everyone happy. But collaboration without clear leadership leads to decision fatigue.

Other reasons teams avoid clarifying decision roles:

• Concern about stepping on toes
• Vague job descriptions
• Rapid team growth without new systems
• Lack of operational discipline

Sanieoff emphasizes that the cost of not deciding who decides is much higher than any temporary discomfort in clarifying roles.

Section 6: A Simple Framework to Define Authority

To reduce decision drag, teams need a framework that’s easy to apply and scale. Abraham Sanieoff recommends a streamlined version of the classic ownership model:

1. The Decision Owner

One person is ultimately responsible. They’re not the only voice, but they make the final call and own the outcome.

2. Consulted Stakeholders

People who provide input — not approval. Their insights are valued, but they don’t control the outcome.

3. Informed Parties

Those who need to be updated after the decision is made — not during.

4. Escalation Paths

If disagreement occurs, is there a pre-agreed person who can resolve it? This avoids endless looping.

Apply this consistently, and you eliminate 80% of decision fog almost immediately.

“When people know who decides — and who doesn’t — it lowers tension and speeds everything up.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

Section 7: Normalizing Ownership Without Fear

Clarity isn’t just about structure — it’s also about psychological safety. If team members fear consequences for making the wrong call, they won’t make any calls.

High-performing teams don’t punish failed decisions. They support the learning process, so people can operate with confidence.

To normalize ownership:

• Publicly support decisions made in good faith, even when outcomes vary
• Focus post-mortems on the process, not blame
• Encourage thoughtful risk-taking within defined parameters

“Ownership dies in environments where mistakes aren’t safe.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

When people feel they’re backed — not judged — they stop waiting and start acting. That’s how you unlock real execution speed.

Section 8: How to Spot and Address Friction Zones

You don’t need a new dashboard to spot decision friction. The clues are already there — in stalled projects, frustrated teams, and recurring misalignment.

Ask yourself:

• Are there recurring delays tied to the same people or processes?
• Are decisions revisited repeatedly before they’re finalized?
• Are minor issues constantly escalated to leadership?
• Is your team unclear on who has approval authority?

Once you identify the hotspots, do a short process review:

Step 1: Map the Decision Type

What category does it fall into — strategic, tactical, or operational?

Step 2: Assign the Owner

Name a single person accountable for the final decision.

Step 3: Define Inputs

Clarify who gets a say — and what kind of input they’re giving.

Step 4: Document the Outcome

Capture the final decision in a shared space to avoid confusion or rework.

Repeat this weekly or monthly for ongoing improvement.

Section 9: What Effective Teams Get Right

In teams that run clean, fast, and aligned, decision-making isn’t a guessing game — it’s a built-in muscle.

They operate with:

• Clear approval authority by function
• Trust between roles and layers of the org
• Minimal escalation on low-stakes calls
• Documentation of what’s been decided and why
• Support for responsible ownership, not micromanagement

“Execution doesn’t require perfect decisions. It requires empowered people making consistent ones.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

When teams trust the structure, they stop looking over their shoulders — and start moving forward.

Conclusion: The Real Risk Is Inaction, Not Imperfection

The longer a decision sits untouched, the more expensive it becomes — not just in dollars, but in missed opportunities and eroded team confidence.

If your team is stalling, check for decision friction. Do people know what’s theirs to own? Do they feel safe making the call? Is the process structured — or assumed?

Abraham Sanieoff reminds us that execution speed is often a byproduct of clarity — not pressure, not meetings, and not headcount.

“You don’t need faster people. You need a system that doesn’t slow them down.”
— Abraham Sanieoff

Start by fixing how decisions are made. From there, everything else moves faster — and with far less effort.