TEG Decision Clarity Checklist

For leaders and managers working in complex, high-pressure and operational environments

A decision does not fail at the moment someone gets it wrong. It usually fails earlier.

It fails when people do not know who owns the decision.
It fails when expert advice arrives too late.
It fails when the person closest to the issue does not feel able to speak.
It fails when everyone assumes someone else has made the call.

This 7 question checklist helps you spot where decision-making may be slowing your team down, creating risk, or placing pressure on the wrong people.

Use it with your leadership team, project team, operational team, or delivery group.

Be honest.

The value sits in the gaps.

Either use this webpage or download our PDF

Decision Clarity Checklist PDF

How to use this checklist

For each statement, score your team from 1 to 5.

1 = Rarely true

2 = Sometimes true

3 = Mostly true

4 = Consistently true

5 = Embedded in how we work

Do not score based on what your process says.

Score based on what actually happens when pressure increases.

1. DECISION OWNERSHIP

Statement	Score
We know who has the authority to make each key decision.
We know which decisions sit with leaders, managers, technical experts and delivery teams.
We know when a decision needs escalation.
We know when a decision does not need escalation.
People do not delay decisions because they are waiting for permission that is not needed.
Decision ownership remains clear when circumstances change.

Warning signs

You may have a decision ownership issue if:

People say, “I thought that was someone else’s call.”
Meetings end with discussion, but no decision.
Teams wait for senior approval on issues they could resolve themselves.
Leaders get pulled into detail too often.
Technical experts feel responsible for decisions they do not formally own.

Prompt for discussion: Where are we asking people to carry responsibility without giving them the authority to act?

2. Role clarity under pressure

Statement	Score
People understand their role before a high-pressure situation begins.
People know who decides, who advises, who acts and who needs to be informed.
Role clarity does not depend on one experienced person being present.
Team members know what they can decide without checking upwards.
New or less experienced team members understand how decisions move through the team.
We make role expectations clear before work starts, not after confusion appears.

Warning signs

You may have a role clarity issue if:

The same people step in every time there is pressure.
New team members stay silent because they do not know where they fit.
Senior people become bottlenecks.
People duplicate work.
People avoid action because they fear stepping outside their role.

Prompt for discussion: When pressure increases, do our roles become clearer, or do they blur?

3. Use of expert knowledge

Statement	Score
Leaders use expert knowledge before making decisions.
Experts understand whether they are advising, deciding, or delivering.
Technical advice reaches decision-makers early enough to shape the outcome.
Leaders do not need to be the technical expert in order to make a strong decision.
Experts feel able to challenge assumptions when they see a risk.
We distinguish clearly between expert input and leadership accountability.

Warning signs

You may have an expert knowledge issue if:

The most technically experienced person becomes the default decision-maker.
Leaders delay decisions because they feel they need more technical detail.
Experts give advice, but do not know whether anyone has acted on it.
People respect knowledge more than leadership capability.
Strong technical performers move into leadership roles without enough support.

Prompt for discussion: Are we using expert knowledge to support decisions, or are we expecting experts to carry leadership accountability by default?

4. Speed and quality of decisions

Statement	Score
We make decisions at the right level.
We make decisions quickly enough to maintain momentum.
We slow down when the risk level demands it.
We avoid unnecessary meetings when a clear decision route already exists.
We know what information we need before making a decision.
We review important decisions without turning every review into blame.

Warning signs

You may have a decision quality issue if:

Urgent decisions happen too slowly.
Complex decisions happen too quickly.
People confuse more discussion with better judgement.
Important information arrives after the decision.
The same decision returns again and again.

Prompt for discussion: Do we know which decisions need speed, which need to be challenged, and which need more evidence?

5. Communication after the decision

Statement	Score
Once a decision is made, people know what has changed.
People know why the decision was made.
People know what action they need to take next.
The right people hear the decision at the right time.
We avoid informal side conversations becoming the main communication route.
We check that the decision has landed, rather than assuming people understood it.

Warning signs

You may have a communication issue if:

People act on different versions of the same decision.
Teams hear about decisions too late.
People understand the instruction, but not the reason.
Decisions get re-explained several times.
Leaders assume silence means agreement.

Prompt for discussion: After a decision, who needs to know, what do they need to know, and what must they do next?

6. Trust and challenge

Statement	Score
People feel able to raise concerns before a decision causes a problem.
Challenge focuses on the work, not the person.
Leaders welcome challenge from people with relevant knowledge.
People do not stay silent because they think the decision has already been made.
The team can disagree clearly, then commit to action.
We treat challenge as useful information, not resistance.

Warning signs

You may have a trust issue if:

People raise concerns privately, but not in the room.
Meetings sound aligned, but problems appear later.
Junior people do not challenge senior assumptions.
Experts soften warnings to avoid tension.
Leaders hear bad news too late.

Prompt for discussion: What are people not saying in the room that they are saying afterwards?

7. Learning from decisions

Statement	Score
We review important decisions after action has been taken.
We look at the decision process, not only the final outcome.
We identify where information was missing, late, unclear, or ignored.
We capture what worked and repeat it.
We change the decision route when it creates delay or confusion.
Learning from one decision improves the next one.

Warning signs

You may have a learning issue if:

Reviews focus only on what went wrong.

Teams repeat the same decision problems.

Lessons learned sit in documents but do not change behaviour.

Good decisions do not get studied.

People judge decisions only by the outcome, not by the quality of thinking at the time.

Prompt for discussion: What did this decision teach us about how we work?

Scoring guide

Add up your total score. There are 42 statements. The highest possible score is 210.

170 to 210: Strong decision clarity Your team has a clear decision structure. Your next opportunity sits in consistency, pressure-testing and making sure clarity survives change, absence, urgency and growth.

125 to 169: Functional, but vulnerable under pressure Your decision-making may work in normal conditions, but pressure may expose gaps. Look closely at escalation, expert input, communication and role clarity.

85 to 124: Decision drag is likely Your team may be losing time, confidence and momentum because decisions do not move cleanly through the organisation. You may see repeated meetings, unclear ownership, slow escalation, or over-reliance on a few experienced people.

Below 85: Decision clarity needs urgent attention Your team may be carrying unnecessary operational risk. People may not know who decides, who acts, who informs, or who owns the outcome. This can affect performance, trust, safety, morale and delivery.

The three questions leaders should ask next:

1. Where do decisions slow down? Look for repeated meetings, delayed approvals, unclear escalation and senior leaders being pulled into issues too early.

2. Where do decisions become unclear? Look for blurred roles, technical experts carrying leadership responsibility, or teams acting on different assumptions.

3. Where do decisions fail to land? Look for poor communication, missed handovers, inconsistent follow-up and people saying, “I did not know that had changed.”

What this checklist often reveals

Decision problems rarely sit in one person. They usually sit in the space between roles. Between the leader and the expert. Between the manager and the team. Between the meeting and the action. Between the decision and the explanation. Between the process and what people actually do.

This is why decision clarity is not just a management issue.

It is a behavioural issue.

How TEG can help

TEG works with organisations where leadership, communication and decision-making matter under pressure.

We help teams understand how decisions are made, where responsibility sits, how expert knowledge gets used, and where behaviour needs to change.

Through practical workshops, leadership development and behavioural insight, TEG helps leaders build teams that know:

Who decides.
Who advises.
Who acts.
Who needs to know.
What happens next.

If this checklist has exposed a gap in your team, the next step is simple. Get in touch with TEG to arrange a Decision Clarity session for your leadership or operational team.

The question is not whether your team makes decisions. The question is whether people understand them quickly enough to act.

TEG UK
Innovation Centre
Westlakes Science Park
Moor Row
Cumbria CA24 3TP

TEGacademy
Innovation Centre
Westlakes Science Park
Moor Row
Cumbria CA24 3TP