“This is an executive suite decision.”
The moment those words leave a senior leader’s mouth, you know you’re about to watch good decision making die a slow, bureaucratic death.
Because what “executive suite decision” actually means is: closed doors, secret conversations, and a deliberate choice to ignore the input of people who actually understand the problem.
And then leadership acts surprised when the decision backfires, good people leave, and implementation fails spectacularly.
Here’s what really happens when you shut people out:
When you tell capable, experienced professionals that their input isn’t wanted, they start thinking, “What’s the point of me being here if they don’t want me to think?”
And that’s exactly how you lose your best people.
People-first leaders don’t want to just execute plans handed down from on high. They want to shape those plans. They want to ensure decisions actually support their teams. They want to contribute their expertise to creating solutions that work in the real world, not just on paper.
But “executive suite” thinking treats this as a threat instead of an asset.
I used to think I was naive for expecting my input to be heard.
As a middle manager, I wasn’t expecting to make the huge strategic decisions. But I was expecting that my understanding of how policies actually played out on the ground might be… relevant? That my knowledge of what worked and what didn’t might inform better decision making?
Apparently, that was asking too much.
Instead, I got to sit in meetings where decisions had already been made in rooms I wasn’t invited to. Where I was told to “cascade” information without any context about why the decision was made or how concerns would be addressed.
Where my job became implementation, not contribution.
And you know what happens to decisions made in isolation?
They’re fucking terrible.
When you exclude the people who understand implementation, you make decisions that sound great in theory but collapse on contact with reality.
When you exclude the people who work directly with your stakeholders, you make decisions that ignore critical needs and concerns.
When you exclude the people who will be held accountable for results, you make decisions that set everyone up for failure.
“Executive suite decisions” aren’t more strategic. They’re just more disconnected.
Real leadership looks different.
It sounds like: “I need to make this decision, but first I want to hear from the people who understand the implications.”
It looks like: bringing the right people into the room, even if they’re not the most senior people.
It feels like: being included in shaping solutions, not just implementing them.
Real leaders understand that good decisions require diverse perspectives. That the people closest to the problem usually have the clearest view of the solution. That excluding expertise doesn’t make you decisive — it makes you reckless.
And here’s the thing that “executive suite” leaders miss:
When you include people in decision making, they become invested in the outcome.
When people understand the reasoning behind a decision, they can implement it more effectively. When they’ve had input into the solution, they’re motivated to make it work.
But when you hand down decisions from on high and expect blind execution? You get compliance at best, sabotage at worst, and mediocre results either way.
Are there decisions that need to be made by senior leadership? Of course.
But most of what gets labeled “executive suite decisions” are really just leaders who are too insecure, too controlling, or too lazy to facilitate good decision making processes.
They’d rather make quick decisions in private than better decisions with input.
And then they wonder why their best people keep leaving and their initiatives keep failing.
So the next time you hear “this is an executive suite decision,” ask yourself:
Is this actually a decision that requires senior-level authority?
Or is this just a leader who thinks exclusion equals leadership?
Because real leaders know that the best decisions come from including the right expertise, not excluding it.
And the organisations that understand this? They’re the ones that keep their good people and actually achieve their missions.
The ones that don’t? Well, they get to keep explaining why all their talented middle managers seem to be leaving for “better opportunities.”
Which kind of organisation are you building?
comments +