Every week your hidden loops run. The cost compounds. I stop that.

I work with leaders responsible for execution.

The ones carrying deadlines, scope, and accountability that never ease up. It often looks like Founders, VPs, Directors, or Product and Project Leads.

But the role is not what matters, the weight is.

The problem is not effort. The problem is loops you cannot see.

They look responsible in the moment but they drain time, slow decisions, and eat into the trust you’ve earned.

You know the signs:

• A decision pushed off until the opportunity is gone
• A hire delayed until the best candidate walks
• Work you delegated pulled back onto your plate

These aren’t small habits.

I do not coach in the way you think of coaching. I cut the loop at the source so it stops running you.

My clients walk out with:

• Decisions made in hours instead of weeks
• Teams that move without being pushed
• Projects delivered instead of delayed
• Opportunities secured before they slip away

We do not polish symptoms. We cut the loop.

No journaling.
No endless talk.
No drawn-out processes.

You can read what my clients say in the "Recommendations" section below.

Roshan Chander

There is a point many capable people never name. 

Work they once cared about starts to feel heavy, not because it became harder or because they lost skill. It changes when the work stops closing. 

Decisions stay open longer than they should. Simple calls accumulate instead of resolving. Ownership blurs. What used to move forward starts cycling back for review, reassurance, or reconsideration. Over time, the work itself becomes associated with friction rather than progress.

This shift is often misread. People assume they fell out of love with the work, that interest faded, or that they need a new direction. In most cases, none of that is true. What changed was not the work itself but how decisions get handled.

When actions no longer lead to closure, effort begins to feel heavier than it should. Tasks remain unfinished. Forward movement slows even though capability remains intact. 

Avoidance creeps in, not because the work lacks meaning, but because unresolved decisions stack faster than they clear.

This is why capable people start dreading work they were once drawn to. The issue is not purpose or motivation. It is unresolved interference inside how decisions move.

When that interference is corrected, the relationship to the work changes. Not through motivation, reframing, or renewed passion but through closure.

Decisions settle, work moves again, and the weight lifts because the loop is no longer running.

I Fix Decision Loops That Slow Execution | Structural Fixes, Not Motivation Work

A client described something that had been happening for a while.

His mornings kept starting with the same items, even though nothing new had occurred. Decisions he believed were done kept requiring attention again.

One of them was a commercial lease add-on he had decided months earlier to stop using. The agreement was no longer useful, but it was never formally exited. Every month it showed up as a charge. Every time it did, it pulled him back into the same loop.

There were others like it. A responsibility he had stepped back from but never clearly reassigned. A commitment he had agreed to review and then kept postponing instead of ending. 

Each one made sense on its own but together they caused the day to restart.

The work was not about pushing harder or planning better. It was about identifying which decisions were still active without reason and finishing them instead of letting them linger.

Once that happened, the mornings changed. Fewer things came back after being handled. Less time was spent revisiting choices that had already been made.

What changed was not what he added, but what finally stopped following him into the next day.

Scaling problems show up when old decisions never fully closed, not when the market shifts.

Before locking in your Q1 plan, look back at last quarter and ask one question. What work returned to your desk that should not have?

Not crisis work. Not strategic calls. Regular operational work you believed was delegated, approved, or complete, but kept coming back for review, confirmation, or reassurance.

That's what's actually slowing you down.

By the time Q1 arrives, the issue is rarely demand or competition. It is the accumulation of work that never actually closed. Responsibility taken on instead of routed. Decisions revisited instead of finalized. Ownership stays with you instead of moving to the structure.

None of this feels irresponsible in the moment. It often feels careful. Sometimes necessary. That is why it persists.

Over time, the pattern shifts how the business moves. Work collects at the same points. Fewer things move without touching the same desk. Execution narrows because nothing closes without you.

This is not a motivation issue. It is not a workload issue. It is not a people issue.

It is unresolved decisions accumulating inside the system. Until those points are addressed, adding tools, hires, or pressure only feeds the same collection points.

Look at what kept reopening last quarter. That usually tells you what needs to close before anything can scale.

There was a stretch where I kept getting stuck on decisions that did not deserve the time they were taking.

I would turn them over again and again, trying to be sure I was not missing something. The strange part was that nothing new was showing up. The inputs were the same. The context had not changed. 

Still, the decision stayed open.

What finally clicked for me was realizing that I was treating every decision as if it were permanent.

I was acting as though once I moved, there was no way back. No adjustment. No correction. That assumption made every move feel final and kept the loop running.

In reality, many of those decisions were reversible. If they did not work, I could change course. If something went wrong, I could correct it. But I never stopped to separate those from the decisions that actually could not be undone.

That is what kept me stuck.

Once I started separating decisions that could be adjusted from the ones that could not, decisions that had been sitting for days started moving. The work behind them moved too.

This is about knowing when the cost of waiting is higher than the cost of adjusting later.

I see this same pattern with the leaders I work with. They are not unsure what to do. They are unsure whether they will be able to recover if they are wrong. So the decision stays open longer than it should.

That is the loop.

It comes from a misread about the nature of the decision itself. Once that gets corrected, decisions that have been sitting for days start closing. 

Everything behind them starts moving too.

At some point, leaders stop fixing problems and start compensating for them.

They step in to keep things moving. They work around friction. They take responsibility for gaps that feel too small to redesign and too important to ignore. None of this looks wrong in the moment. It looks like leadership.

Over time, those compensations harden into patterns.

Work that should move through the system starts routing upward. Decisions that should settle begin circulating. The leader becomes the point where unresolved work accumulates.

Effort, commitment, and capability are all present. The slowdown comes from interference being managed instead of removed.

When leaders rely on reassurance instead of clear boundaries, or absorb responsibility instead of correcting the structure that created it, execution slows. Fewer things move without involvement. Decisions wait longer than they should. The system keeps working, but only because someone is manually holding it together.

That loop accumulates decision debt.

Until those patterns are corrected at the structural level, every external fix adds pressure to the same internal weak points. 

More tools. More hires. More urgency. Same outcome.

If you are stepping in more than you used to, look at what you are compensating for. That usually shows you what the structure has been avoiding.

There’s a moment when a timeline looks set but doesn’t actually hold. 

The date gets agreed on, the plan is shared, and work starts moving. On the surface, it appears settled.

A few days later, the timeline comes back into view. Someone asks if it’s still realistic. A related task gets pulled back into discussion. A small adjustment is talked through. 

Nothing officially changes but the date becomes conditional.

A week later, it’s reviewed again. Just to make sure it still makes sense. At that point, the timeline exists on paper, not in practice. Work continues but decisions downstream slow because no one fully trusts where things stand.

This is how timelines stretch without ever being formally changed. Not through delay but through re-entry. The same date keeps getting touched instead of held. 

Uncertainty seeps into the work, and execution starts routing upward for confirmation instead of moving forward.

If timelines have been reopening more often lately, it’s worth noticing. Once a date stops holding, everything tied to it starts hesitating too.

There are moments when a decision looks final, but it does not actually hold.

The approval happens, direction is set, and work begins. On the surface, everything appears to be moving forward. Then a few days later, the same question appears again. The topic returns to a meeting. Someone asks for another look. The work pauses or gets adjusted, even though nothing new has surfaced.

This usually traces back to the moment the decision was made.

Often, the call was reached without defining what would count as success or failure. Sometimes ownership was implied rather than named. In other cases, the decision depended on alignment rather than commitment. The group agreed to move forward but no boundary was set around what would not be revisited.

Because those conditions were never set, the work advances while the decision remains unresolved. Reviews repeat. Leaders re-enter. Direction shifts, then shifts again.

Progress feels heavier than it should. Time gets spent returning to things that were already decided. People hesitate because they sense the decision is still open. 

If work keeps coming back after it should be moving on, the place to look is not the execution. It is the moment where the decision was made without defining the conditions that would keep it closed. 

That missing piece usually explains why the issue keeps returning.

I watched a YouTube video from a senior software engineer who had spent over two decades in big tech and was recently laid off.

What stood out was not the layoff itself. It was what happened once the structure he had been operating inside for years was gone.

For most of his career, the system did a lot of invisible work. 

Roles were clear. Expectations were set. Decisions closed quickly because the environment closed them for you. Long hours and heavy tradeoffs felt tolerable because the path forward rarely needed to be renegotiated from scratch.

When that structure disappeared, he described entering what felt like a wilderness. Not because he lacked skill or experience, but because the external container that had been holding decisions in place no longer existed.

That shift exposes something many people in similar positions run into. 

When the system that once absorbed uncertainty is removed, decisions that used to resolve automatically now sit open. What to pursue, how hard to push, and what is worth the cost all move back onto the individual at the same time.

This is not confusion and it is not a lack of capability. It is the absence of decision closure mechanisms that were previously embedded in the environment.

Until new ones are established, even highly experienced people find that effort spreads thin and progress feels uneven longer than expected.

Nothing is broken. The structure that once carried those decisions simply is not there anymore.

Some weeks feel busy without much actually moving.

Calendars fill up fast. More check-ins get added to stay aligned. Meetings show up to unblock work, review work, or prepare for other meetings. 

By the end of the day, very little has been finished.

By midweek, the same topics are back. Decisions that were already discussed resurface in the next meeting. Context has to be rebuilt because half the room was doing something else when it was last covered. Five minutes get spent recovering the previous five minutes.

Work gets pushed later in the day to after meetings, but there is less energy left by then. Actual execution shrinks to a few narrow windows between calls. The day feels full, yet unfinished.

Decisions do not settle. They get revisited and stay active longer than expected. Work continues but forward movement depends on repeated confirmation.

This is why teams can add hours without adding output. The time goes to coordination and recovery, not execution. More meetings create the need for more meetings.

If your week feels crowded but unfinished, look at which decisions are appearing in multiple meetings. That's usually where the cycle is draining capacity.

I used to believe my issue with delegation came from high standards. I cared about the outcome, so staying close to the work felt responsible. If something slowed down or did not move the way I expected, I stepped back in and fixed it myself.

What I could not see at the time was the pattern I was creating. Work did not actually move forward. It circulated. Decisions stayed open longer than necessary. Tasks that should have stayed delegated found their way back to me. 

Over time, the team learned to wait instead of act, not because they lacked capability, but because my behavior signaled that ownership was temporary.

This was not a trust problem in the emotional sense. It was a control reflex that fired when certainty did not arrive quickly enough. The moment uncertainty showed up, my mind treated it as risk and responded by taking control back.

That reflex felt justified in the moment. It was costly over time. I became the bottleneck. Execution slowed. The system relied on my attention instead of moving on its own.

That is one of the execution patterns I work with now. Not by teaching people to delegate better, but by identifying the exact internal moment where the loop fires and disrupts execution.

Most leaders do not realize this is happening. They just feel heavier weeks, more involvement than they want, and progress that depends too much on them.

taplio

The Battle

Roshan Chander

Anand Dattani

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreRoshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Roshan Chander

Anand Dattani

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Roshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreRoshan Chander's LinkedIn Performance