ModulesModule 1

Transfer a Recurring Decision

Chapter 1: Why You Are the Bottleneck.

The book is out in early 2027. The lesson below carries the chapter, so you can start now.

Start the 8-minute lessonJump to the tools8 minute lesson, 60 minute session
  1. 1ReadThe lesson, about 8 minutes.
  2. 2UseThe 4 tools, on one real situation.
  3. 3MeetA 60-minute working session with your team.
  4. 4Mark it heldThe module is done when the session happens.

In short

Module 1 of the free Heroes Don't Scale course, by Russ Reeder, turns Chapter 1, Why You Are the Bottleneck, into work. Find the one decision the company keeps waiting on.

Objectives

  • Find the one decision the company keeps waiting on.
  • Sort the queue into keep, redirect, and authorize.
  • Hand one decision off with the information, access, boundaries, and backing the next owner needs, and set the two week check that tells you whether it held.
  • Where two leaders share a decision, name who closes the tie and by when.

Lesson

About 8 minutes to read

The scene

Los Angeles, a Saturday morning in August 2005. Paper everywhere. I had founded Rightsline five years earlier, the team was amazing, and that morning it hit me in the face that I was part of every decision. Finance, legal, sales, product, marketing: I had asked the team to deliver on all of it and never explicitly gave them the authority to make the calls. The shadow operating system was simple: this is a big decision, we should check with Russ.

The mechanism

I pulled out my notebook, and what I wrote down was not a delegation list. I wrote down how I was going to give authority: these decisions are yours, and we will track outcomes together. I called Steve Stebbins, my chief revenue officer, that Saturday to warn him. Monday morning we worked through every decision together: pricing and discounts, hiring and compensation, account assignments, and negotiating customer contracts. I could see the weight lift off him. An authority handoff needs that level of detail. Picture a sales leader approving standard renewals within an agreed price range: put the range, contract terms, and service commitments in writing, name who decides an exception, and review the results at an agreed interval. The boundary makes the transfer usable. That week I told the whole executive leadership team that I had given them enormous responsibility while quietly holding back the authority that should have gone with it. Authority is decision rights, not a title. Every time I stepped in to close a deal, I taught the team to bring the next problem back to me. It probably took months to get fully out of the way.

The second scene

Years later I lived the same system from the other side. At Media Temple I was president and every line reported through me. The responsibility was mine. The authority wasn't. When things got hard, people went around me straight back to Demian Sellfors, the founder and CEO. Not disloyalty. They knew how the company actually worked. I asked for a meeting with Demian and John Carey, the CFO. I had not briefed John, Demian had no warning, and he felt ganged up on. Then John spoke up on his own: "Demian, things need to go back through Russ. We're asking Russ to deliver on this. If someone comes to you directly and Russ has asked them to do something, just send them back. Ask them, 'Have you spoken to Russ about this?'" That one redirect was the mechanism. Demian started sending people back, and the managers' muscle memory slowly changed with it.

The third scene

One more way to be the bottleneck, and it is not one person. BlackBerry had two CEOs, Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie. In fiscal 2011 it still reported $19.9 billion in revenue, up 33%, and a record 52.3 million devices shipped. Strong results did not settle the platform question. Balsillie later described the disagreement to Freakonomics Radio: he wanted to build on BlackBerry's services business, while Lazaridis wanted to keep investing in hardware. He said they reached an impasse and took it to the board, which chose the hardware path. That is his account of how the disagreement closed, not proof of what caused the decline. The lesson is to tell a decision inside one leader's scope from a strategic choice that changes both. When a decision spans two leaders' responsibilities, who brings the facts together, who makes the final call, and when must it be made? Name the tiebreaker before the tie arrives.

The tool

The Hero Test on yourself, the Bottleneck Check, then two working days of the 48-Hour Decision Queue Audit. Sort the queue into keep, redirect, and authorize. Write an Authority Grant for the third group and name the tiebreaker for any shared decision in the Decision Rights Record. Test one handoff on real work and a relevant exception, and check the queue and the result after two weeks.

From your seat

If you run the company, the decision is yours to hand off, and the handoff is public: put it in writing and tell everyone it affects. When a decision you handed off lands back on your desk, ask whether they have spoken to the owner, and send it back. If you sit where Steve sat, don't wait for your boss's Saturday: write down the decisions you keep carrying up that you could already make, and ask for them in plain words. If you hold the title without the authority, give the person whose habit has to change some warning, brief your ally before you walk in, and ask for one redirect, framed as the result you cannot deliver while decisions route around you. Those are the steps I skipped at Media Temple. If you are the one everyone waits for, start with the work that keeps calling you back. Capture what you know, give someone else the authority to act with the knowledge, access, and practice to use it, and test real work and a relevant exception without your routine intervention.

The line

Giving authority is not a decision you make once on a Saturday. You keep making it every day until it sticks.

Tools

Module 1: Transfer a Recurring Decision. From the free course toolkit for Heroes Don't Scale.

Hero Test and Bottleneck Check

The three Hero Test questions, the seven assessment questions, and the three-question Bottleneck Check printed in Module 0, answered for yourself first. Choose one recurring dependency to change.

48-Hour Decision Queue Audit

Two working days. Start with unresolved decisions already waiting, then record each new decision that reaches the person you named. Ordinary consultation is not a blocked decision. The same record continues afterward as the Waiting Decision Log.

Waiting Decision Log

Worksheet
  • Decision needed
  • Outcome affected
  • Date first requested
  • Current age
  • Accountable owner
  • Authorized decider
  • Why it reached the top
  • Information missing
  • Decision deadline
  • Resolution

The sort. At the end of the audit, review the entries with the relevant owners and sort them into three groups: decisions that properly belong at the top, decisions an existing owner should make, and decisions nobody has been authorized to make. Record personnel and other confidential decisions by category, owner, and age only, and review them with the people entitled to see them. Keep the first group. Redirect the second. Use the Authority Grant for the third. Where two leaders share a decision, name who closes the tie and by when in the Decision Rights Record; its fields are in Module 3. Choose one handoff to test, with the support it needs, and check both the queue and the result after two weeks.

Initiative: ________________________ Owner: ________________________ Date: ____________

Authority Grant

Session 1 writes one for the third group. Module 8 teaches the grant in full and holds its fields. Its five elements are the decisions delegated, budget and staffing authority, tradeoff authority over competing priorities, standards and constraints, and an escalation path with a response deadline, backed by a sponsor who announces the grant where affected teams can see it and sets a review date.

Working Session

60 minutes

Find one decision that keeps the company waiting, then give another person the conditions to carry it. Expertise should help colleagues develop judgment, not leave them dependent on permission.

People
The executive receiving requests, the outcome owner who will carry the decision next, and the sponsor able to authorize the necessary resources and boundaries.
Bring
The 48-Hour Decision Queue Audit: the current backlog and two working days of new requests. Add existing authority limits and the business commitments affected. Ordinary consultation is not automatically a blocked decision.
  1. 10min

    Which recurring decision waits here?

    Open with the Hero Test, each person answering for themselves. Then name the decision, its age, the result waiting behind it, and why it reaches this person.

  2. 10min

    Where should the decision sit?

    Sort the audit's entries into the three groups. Keep decisions that properly belong at the top. Redirect those already delegated. Identify those nobody is authorized to make. For any decision two leaders share, name who closes the tie and by when in the Decision Rights Record.

  3. 15min

    What does the next owner need?

    Specify the information, access, resources, judgment to learn, and limits. Ask the owner to explain the reasoning they would use.

  4. 15min

    Who will back the transfer?

    Confirm the Authority Grant with the sponsor, all five elements: the decisions delegated, budget and staffing authority, tradeoff authority over competing priorities, standards and constraints, and an escalation path with a response deadline. Name the teams who must hear the change.

  5. 10min

    How will we know the handoff worked?

    Choose the next real instance, and a relevant exception, as the test, with a two week review. Define evidence of waiting time, the result, and any rework or override.

Leave with
The audit sorted into keep, redirect, and authorize, any shared decision's tiebreaker named, and one authorized decision handoff in the VOOCS Operating Record (the one-page record from Module 5 that every session writes into) with the support commitment and the next test. If authority is unresolved, record its decider and due date as an open entry in the Waiting Decision Log instead of calling the transfer complete.
Next check
Follow the next decision through the agreed route. Review the owner's reasoning and the result before taking authority back.
If the work still stalls
The executive's inbox shrinks while work waits elsewhere, or the owner still needs informal permission. Find the missing condition before judging the person.

Session kit: tools from other modules

Session 1 uses these tools from other modules. They are here so you can run the session from this page. Print worksheet prints them with the session.

From Module 3: Resolve an Execution Dispute

Decision Rights Record

Worksheet
  • Who owns the result
  • Who advises
  • Who approves and why
  • Who can resolve a dispute
  • What triggers escalation
  • Who records the decision
  • Where affected teams can find it

Initiative: ________________________ Owner: ________________________ Date: ____________

From Module 5: Build the Operating Loop and Transfer Judgment

VOOCS Operating Record

Worksheet

Copy this record for one initiative. Use role titles while designing the plan, then name the actual people before making a live commitment. Link to detail only where it supports a decision. Leave irrelevant fields out. If an answer is unknown, or the owner and sponsor give different answers, name who will resolve it and by when. Start with one recurring problem so the team can test the whole arrangement before expanding it; the book's illustrative locked-accounts record in Chapter 5 shows one filled in.

Header fields:

  • Initiative
  • Outcome owner
  • Sponsor
  • Date and next review
  • Facilitator and recorder

Vision: What result are we building toward, and who benefits? Why does it matter now? Which priority does it serve? What are we choosing not to do?

Outcomes: What is the baseline, target, and due date? Which quality or risk conditions must hold? What evidence will show the result, and who will verify it?

Ownership: Who owns the outcome? Which decisions and resources can they control? What do dependency owners commit to deliver, and who resolves it when their other priorities compete with this work? What is reserved for someone else, and how quickly must that person respond?

Cadence: When will we review the evidence? Who will do what next, by when? Which decision must close before the work can proceed? Where will we record the decision and its result? If a commitment slipped, what condition changes before the new date?

Systems: What repeatable workflow, standards, and controls support the work? Where is the shared source of truth? Who has the access, training, and practice to provide backup? What evidence shows they can carry the work and recognize an exception without waiting for the original hero?

Decision check. Before closing, confirm: decision and reason; authorized owner; next commitment; due date; evidence and receiving person. If a gap remains, record its exact question, decider, evidence owner, and return date.

Module 7 deepens the Outcomes line and Module 8 the Ownership line. Every other tool writes into this same record, and the 90-Day Install follows it.

Initiative: ________________________ Owner: ________________________ Date: ____________

From Module 8: Make the Authority Agreement Hold

Authority Grant

Worksheet

Before holding someone accountable, ask them to explain the decisions they can make without further permission, and compare their answer with the sponsor's using one blocked dependency or contested choice. Close any gap in writing and confirm it with affected teams. The grant has five elements: the decisions delegated, budget and staffing authority, tradeoff authority over competing priorities, standards and constraints, and an escalation path with a response deadline. If the sponsor lacks the authority, name who can grant it and the decision deadline. If that authority will not be granted, record what the current arrangement can and cannot deliver. One owner does not mean one person does all the work. It means someone can coordinate dependencies and obtain a binding decision when authority runs out.

  • Outcome and accountable owner
  • Decisions delegated, and decisions reserved for others
  • Budget and staffing authority, including the information and meeting access the owner needs and the contributors whose work is required
  • Tradeoff authority over competing priorities
  • Standards and constraints
  • Escalation path with a response deadline: who hears it and how fast they must answer
  • Backing: sponsor who announces and backs the grant, where affected teams can see it, review date

The grant for a unit. The same grant serves a local business, division, or region. Write it for the unit as you would for one owner: the local outcome, the decisions it keeps without central approval, the shared obligations it must meet, its resource boundaries, its dependencies on the parent, the escalation path, and the conditions for revisiting the arrangement. The Backbone and Autonomy Matrix in Module 10 holds what must be common; this grant holds what stays local. Keep the two in one record.

Initiative: ________________________ Owner: ________________________ Date: ____________

The Hero Test for this chapter

THE HERO TEST: Who is the bottleneck?

  1. For the person at the top

    Which decisions reached you this week that someone else was already responsible for?

  2. For the manager in the middle

    Which decision did you carry up this month that you could have made, and did it wait because nobody granted it or because checking first had become the habit?

  3. For the person the company waits on

    What stops until you have looked at it, and what would the next person need to carry it without you?

One action

If the decision is yours, hand one recurring decision, in writing, to the person already doing the work and tell everyone it affects. If it is not, write down one decision you could make, ask for it plainly, and agree who will send people back to you.

Evidence of Completion

  • One decision handoff in the VOOCS Operating Record, with the Authority Grant's five elements written, the sponsor named as its public backer, and the support commitment for the new owner.
  • The next real instance and a relevant exception chosen as the test, with the evidence you will inspect, and a dated two week review on the calendar.
  • If authority was not resolved, an open Waiting Decision Log entry with its authorized decider and due date, not a transfer marked complete.

Was this module useful?