THE DIRECT ANSWER

Name the decision that needs to be made, then ask who can approve that particular change. Separate people who know the facts from people who can set priorities, change acceptance conditions, or commit capacity. Record the decision owner and the next step. If authority is unclear, seek a named route for clarification instead of treating the loudest response as approval.

Make the decision smaller and more precise

“Who is in charge?” is often too broad to help. A single delivery may contain several different decisions: which outputs are required, whether a date can move, what capacity can be allocated, and who accepts the result. Ask about the exact change on the table. Someone who owns a deadline may not control staffing; someone who reviews quality may not have permission to remove a required handoff.

Separate facts from permission

A person can know that an analysis takes three hours without being able to authorize dropping it. Another person can approve priorities while lacking the task estimates needed to choose sensibly. Invite both contributions. A recommendation becomes useful when it connects accurate information with the correct approval route. Avoid using seniority, confidence, or meeting attendance as a substitute for confirming who can decide.

  • Knowledge: who can verify the relevant facts?
  • Recommendation: who can explain the options?
  • Approval: who can authorize the specific change?
  • Execution: who will carry out the agreed plan?

Ask a question that can be answered

Use a specific request such as, “Can you approve deferring the optional polish, or should this go to someone else?” If the person cannot decide, ask whom to involve and what information that person needs. Set a reasonable response checkpoint tied to the work. Do not turn a routing question into a public challenge to someone’s status; the aim is to make the next action unambiguous.

Keep interim work within a clear agreement

While waiting for a decision, state what you can safely continue under the current plan and what depends on approval. Avoid presenting a provisional choice as final simply because work has begun. When delay itself creates a risk, report the risk and request an authorized interim instruction. The right interim action depends on the project’s actual rules and dependencies, which this fictional practice cannot supply.

Use role-specific language

An employee can ask a manager which priority they are authorized to set and who resolves a cross-team conflict. A freelancer can ask whether their contact can approve changes to scope, budget, and acceptance. A person working across several roles can name the decision needed in this project without assuming authority from another role carries over. In each setting, the question concerns a concrete decision rather than personal rank.

Capture the approval and its limits

A useful recap names the chosen option, the person who approved it, the work owner, and any condition still open. If an approval covers only scope, do not imply that it also covers spending or a new date. Share the recap in the project’s working source so implementers do not have to reconstruct a private conversation. Invite correction when the boundaries remain uncertain.

AUTHORED FICTIONAL EXAMPLE

A conversation you can rehearse

Authored fictional example, the Fixed Deadline case: Friday noon is fixed. Five hours are available; core work takes three, mandatory handoff one, and optional polish three. A reviewer asks for all seven hours of work but has not said whether they can change priorities.

A first reaction

You asked for it, so I assumed you approved dropping the handoff.

A more specific response

The core and required handoff fit in four hours; adding polish makes seven against five available. I recommend delivering the core with its handoff by Friday noon and deferring polish. Can you approve that scope choice, or who should make the decision? The handoff remains required.

The speaker shares the arithmetic, offers a feasible recommendation, and asks for the exact approval needed. The request does not grant the reviewer authority they may not have or trade away a required condition.

Before you act

  • State the exact decision.
  • Identify missing facts.
  • Ask who can approve that change.
  • Name the execution owner separately.
  • Record conditions and pending approvals.

Common questions

What if two people both claim decision authority?

Describe the conflicting instructions and ask them to identify a single decision or an agreed escalation route. Do not quietly choose whichever instruction is easier while telling both people their request is being followed.

Do I need formal approval for every small action?

No. Use the authority already delegated to you. Clarify when the proposed action changes an agreed constraint or exceeds what you know you can decide; avoid adding approval steps that the work does not require.

Original fictional practice guidance. Actual decision rights depend on your organization, role, project agreement, and the particular change being proposed.

Source basis: an original scenario-based practice framework. The example is fictional, and no external research finding or measured effectiveness is claimed. Read the editorial method.