Meaning

When decisions are made without connection to their downstream effects, accountability weakens. People make calls in isolation, unaware of the cost, disruption, or risk those decisions introduce elsewhere on the project.

Over time, this separation erodes judgment. Decisions become easier to make, but harder to live with, because the people deciding are insulated from the outcomes.

Example Under Pressure

A Project Manager reviews a late design change requested by the owner and approves it to maintain alignment and momentum. The Project Manager makes the decision independently and does not discuss the change with the Superintendent or the APM before approving it.

The Superintendent learns of the change after it has already been approved, with little time to adjust field sequencing. Trades are disrupted and work has to be reshuffled. At the same time, the APM is forced to rush updates to submittals and adjust procurement timelines that were already in motion.

When the schedule slips and costs increase, frustration spreads across the team. The decision itself was reasonable and correct. The failure occurred because the Project Manager who made the decision did not carry the consequences of that decision through the team. The disconnect, not the change, caused the damage.

Principle Clarification

This principle establishes that people make better decisions when they experience the impact of the decisions they approve. When a PM, APM, or Superintendent makes a call without seeing how it affects schedule, cost, or field execution, responsibility becomes diluted across the team.

When the person who decides is connected to the outcome, judgment improves. When decisions and consequences travel together, coordination tightens and trust across the team strengthens.

“Decisions improve when consequences are not abstract”