Why it happens
A development strategy set at board level typically specifies what should happen — which asset classes, which geographies, which return thresholds — without specifying who has final authority when two of those priorities point in different directions on a live scheme. That ambiguity is rarely visible while a pipeline is small, because a small number of senior people can resolve every conflict personally, in real time, without anyone needing to formalise where authority sits. It becomes visible precisely when volume grows past what that informal resolution can absorb, at which point every stalled decision looks, from a distance, like a planning delay or a funding delay, when the underlying cause is frequently that nobody was clearly positioned to make the call.
This connects to a broader pattern Larry Greiner identified in his research on organisational growth: practices that worked at one stage — in this case, informal resolution by a small senior group — become the constraint at the next stage, not because they were poorly designed, but because they were sized for a scale the organisation has since outgrown.
There is also a specific reason property development makes this ambiguity more costly than it would be elsewhere: the cost of an unresolved decision compounds with time in a way few other business activities do. A stalled decision in a services business typically delays a single deliverable. A stalled decision on a live development site can delay a construction programme with its own fixed costs running regardless, push a scheme past a financing deadline, or miss a planning window that will not reopen for months — which means the same underlying ambiguity about who has authority produces a much larger financial consequence in this sector than the ambiguity itself would suggest.
How this presents in property development specifically
The clearest version of this problem sits at the boundary between the investment committee that approved a scheme’s original business case and the delivery team executing it months or years later, once market conditions, costs, or planning requirements have moved. The original approval specified a set of assumptions; it rarely specified who has authority to make trade-offs when those assumptions no longer hold, and re-escalating every such trade-off to committee level introduces exactly the delay a growing pipeline can least afford.
A second, quieter version sits between the organisation and its external funding or planning partners. A scheme’s internal strategy can be entirely clear while its external partners operate to different timelines, different risk appetites, and different definitions of what “on track” means — and because those partners sit outside the organisation’s own reporting lines, a stalled decision at this boundary is often the hardest of all to see coming, and the easiest to misattribute to the partner’s slowness rather than to an internal ambiguity about who owns the relationship and the trade-offs within it.
A third version, less discussed than the first two, sits inside the delivery team itself as a scheme grows more complex. Design decisions, cost decisions and programme decisions are frequently owned by different specialists, each with genuine authority in their own domain, and a change that improves one can quietly worsen another — a design revision that improves lettability may add cost or time that neither the designer nor the delivery lead individually has authority to accept on the scheme’s behalf. Where no single role holds authority across all three, the trade-off itself becomes the stalled decision.
Where this shows up
People working in real estate businesses will probably recognise this pattern first. The wider Asset and Production-Based grouping and the other sectors page show how it presents elsewhere.
Questions worth considering
- When a scheme’s original assumptions no longer hold, who currently has authority to adjust the plan without a full re-escalation?
- Where does the organisation’s strategy rely on external partners whose own decision-making pace was never explicitly built into the plan?
- Which recurring delays have been attributed to planning or funding partners that, on closer inspection, trace back to an internal decision the organisation had not clearly assigned?
- Where design, cost and programme decisions genuinely conflict on a live scheme, who currently has standing to resolve the trade-off between them?
Your team is facing similar challenges?
Subscribe to The Riddle Ledger
Perspectives are sent as they are published, with no promotional email, and you can unsubscribe at any time.