Common traits of companies that cannot reach a conclusion even after their 4th meeting: The more you aim for 'everyone's consensus,' the less the successor's company moves

A few years after the succession.

Meetings are being held.
Discussions are being held with executives.
Opinions from the front lines are being heard.
Materials are being prepared.

And yet—

For some reason, no conclusion is reached.

・No matter how many times we talk, we return to the same points
・No one objects, but nothing is implemented
・In the end, the president takes it back to consider
・Executives adopt a wait-and-see approach
・Nothing changes after the meeting

There are not a few companies in such a state.

Especially in companies led by successors after a transition,
this state of 'not reaching a conclusion even after a meeting' is prone to occur.

But this is not just due to a lack of ability among executives.

In many cases, the problem lies in
the confusion between the 'purpose of the meeting' and the 'structure of decision-making'itself.

Successors are prone to aiming for 'everyone's consensus'

A successor is different from a founder.

The company already exists.
There are employees.
There are veteran executives.
There is the predecessor's way of doing things.
There is a history with business partners.

Therefore, when deciding on something,
one tends to think like this:

'If possible, I want everyone to be convinced'
'I want to proceed without causing backlash'
'I want to save face for the veteran employees'
'I don't want to be thought of as denying the predecessor's methods'

This feeling is very natural.

However, there is a pitfall here.

The more you aim for everyone's consensus, the slower decision-making becomes.

This is because within a company,
there are people with different positions, interests, and perspectives.

Sales looks at revenue.
Manufacturing looks at the burden on the front lines.
Accounting looks at cash flow.
Veteran employees look at past methods.
Younger staff look at future potential.
The president looks at the company as a whole.

It is not the case that everyone is speaking from the same premise.

Therefore, if you assume that everyone must agree,
meetings will never reach a conclusion.

The real reason why meetings don't reach conclusions

In companies where meetings don't function,
the following things often happen.

・It is ambiguous what the meeting is supposed to decide
・It is unclear who the final decision-maker is
・Consultation, reporting, and approval are all mixed together
・Discussions begin without the points of contention being organized
・There is no distinction between opposing opinions and concerns
・The person responsible for execution after a decision is made is not determined

In other words, the problem is not
that there is 'not enough discussion'.

It is actually the opposite.

You are discussing too much, but there is no structure for making decisions.

This is the essence of the matter.

When 'consultation' and 'approval' are mixed, meetings stall

A particularly common occurrence is
meetings where 'consultation' and 'approval' are mixed.

For example, the president says,
'I'd like to proceed in this direction, what do you think?'
and throws it to the executives.

As the president, they want to hear opinions.
As executives, they don't know if it's okay to disagree.
Long-time employees worry about the differences from the previous generation's methods.
Younger employees read the room and stay silent.

As a result,
no one clearly disagrees.
But no one is genuinely taking action.

This happens often.

Why?

Because it is ambiguous whether that meeting is
a 'place to gather opinions',
a 'place to make decisions',
or a 'place to create execution plans'.

When the types of meetings are mixed,
participants don't know how they should behave.

Successors struggle because they end up taking everything back with them

In companies where meetings don't reach conclusions,
it tends to end like this.

'The president will think about it for now'
'I will organize it by next time'
'Let's consider it a bit more'

At first glance, it seems thorough.

But in reality,
the president is just taking everything back with them.

As a result, in the successor's mind,
the points of contention just keep piling up.

・Opinions from executives
・Anxieties from the field
・Cash flow
・The predecessor's reaction
・Employees' sense of consensus
・Impact on business partners
・Anxiety about one's own judgment

And then, it becomes even harder to decide.

Even though meetings are being held,
only the president ends up exhausted.

This is dangerous.

What meetings need is not the volume of speech, but 'design'

When trying to improve meetings,
it tends to become a discussion about
'let's share more opinions',
'let's have active debates',
or 'let's increase psychological safety'.

Of course, that is also important.

But in the field of small and medium-sized enterprises,
what is needed first is something more practical.

That is the design of the meeting.

Specifically,

・What are we deciding today?
・What are we not deciding?
・What are the criteria for judgment?
・Who is the final decision-maker?
・Whose opinions need to be heard?
・After the decision, who does what by when?
・What numbers or conditions will be checked next time?

If you hold a meeting without these things decided,
no matter how much time you spend, you will not reach a conclusion.

A meeting is
not a place for discussion, but
a decision-making mechanism to move the company forward.

Align 'judgment criteria' before 'consensus'

What is important in a successor's company
is not to get everyone to agree.

What is needed first
is to align the judgment criteria.

For example, if you are considering a price increase,

・To what extent do you want to improve the gross profit margin?
・What sales are acceptable to lose, and what sales must not be lost?
・How will you fulfill your accountability to existing customers?
・Will the burden on the front lines increase or decrease?
・How will it affect available capital?
・To what extent can you tolerate a short-term decline in sales?

Without organizing these criteria,
discussing only 'whether or not to raise prices'
will not lead to a consensus in meetings.

This is because
the risks each person is looking at are different.

Sales fears losing customers.
Accounting seeks gross profit improvement.
The front lines worry about the workload required for implementation.
The president thinks about the source of funds for future investment.

That is precisely why what is needed first
is not whether to agree or disagree, but
what criteria to use for judgment.

Companies that reach conclusions have a set 'way of deciding'

Companies that reach conclusions in meetings
are not necessarily companies with many talented people.

Rather,
they are companies where the way of deciding is fixed.

・Meetings for information sharing
・Meetings for organizing issues
・Meetings for decision-making
・Meetings for confirming execution

These are separated.

And,
who decides,
what is used to decide,
and who will act after the decision is made are all clear.

That is why meetings move forward.

Conversely, in companies where meetings do not reach conclusions,
it is not that the people are bad,
but that the functions of the meetings are mixed up.

Finally

The reason meetings don't reach conclusions
is not because the president lacks decision-making power.

It is not because the executives are incompetent either.

In many cases,
the purpose, issues, judgment criteria, and decision-making authority of the meeting are simply mixed up.

Successors, in particular,
make decisions while carrying the weight of many relationships: predecessors, long-term employees, front-line staff, business partners, financial institutions, and relatives.

That is precisely why
the more you try to shoulder it all alone, the less you can decide.

What is needed
is not to try harder.

Create a structure that allows for decision-making.

If right now,

・Meetings are held but no conclusions are reached
・Executives are not taking action
・The president always ends up taking the issue back home
・It is unclear what the meeting is supposed to decide
・Decisions are made but never implemented

If such a state continues,
it may not be due to a lack of ability,
but simply because the structure for meetings and decision-making is not yet in place.

I handle over 400 consultations annually in the fields of business succession, second startups, and new business development.

In a 60-minute brainstorming session, I help clarify:

・Where the meetings are getting stuck
・What the real issues are
・Who should be making the decisions
・What the criteria for judgment are
・What premises should be shared with executives
・The next realistic steps to take

I organize these points.

Managing a company as a successor
is not a job where you have to carry everything on your own.

For a company to move forward,
it is necessary to organize not just the president's thoughts,
but also the mechanisms for meetings and decision-making.

※Case studies have been partially modified. They are not related to actual companies or individuals.

📩 Click here for your first 60-minute consultation
“Executives aren't moving,” “Meetings don't reach decisions,” “I'm taking on too much.”
Let's organize these states together from a structural perspective.

👉 Click here for inquiries
https://jissenstrategy.com/contact
✉ info@jissenstrategy.com

Atsushi Kumagai
Practical Management Advisor / SME Management Consultant

I provide hands-on support in the fields of business succession, second startups, and new business development to create a state where business owners can make decisions.

Next article

Previous article