Decision Ownership: RACI for Talent Decisions

Executive summary#

• Decision ownership defines who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) for talent decisions
• Clear ownership prevents three failure modes: decision paralysis (no one decides), decision conflict (multiple people decide), decision surprise (stakeholders not informed)
• Five core decision types: Hiring, Build-Buy-Partner, Promotions, Exits, Capacity Planning
• Default model: Talent owns sourcing/process (R), Hiring Manager owns decision (A), Finance/Delivery consulted (C)
• Without clear ownership, talent decisions take 2-3× longer and lack accountability

Definitions#

Decision Ownership: The explicit assignment of responsibility, accountability, consultation, and information rights for specific talent decisions using the RACI framework.

RACI Framework:

• R (Responsible): Does the work to make the decision happen
• A (Accountable): Owns the outcome, makes the final call, single point of accountability
• C (Consulted): Provides input before decision is made
• I (Informed): Notified after decision is made

What's included: All talent decisions that affect headcount, cost, capability, or capacity—hiring, promotions, exits, build-buy-partner, capacity planning, role changes.

What's NOT included: Day-to-day management decisions (task assignment, performance feedback, project staffing at individual level). Those remain with line managers.

Key principle: Every decision has exactly one A (Accountable). Multiple Rs are okay, multiple Cs are fine, but never multiple As.

Why this matters#

Business impact#

Clear decision ownership drives speed and accountability:

Problem 1: Decision paralysis

• Symptom: Hiring requisition sits for weeks, no one makes final call
• Root cause: Unclear who has authority—talent says "waiting for manager," manager says "waiting for finance"
• Consequence: Time-to-billable delays, lost revenue, frustrated candidates

Problem 2: Decision conflict

• Symptom: Multiple stakeholders override each other, candidate receives conflicting information
• Root cause: Multiple people think they're "A" (Accountable)
• Consequence: Poor candidate experience, internal friction, slow decisions

Problem 3: Decision surprise

• Symptom: Finance learns about hire after offer is made, delivery finds out about contractor engagement after contract signed
• Root cause: Key stakeholders not included in "C" or "I"
• Consequence: Budget conflicts, capacity mismatches, rework

Organizations with clear decision ownership report:#

• 50-70% faster hire-to-start time (decisions made in days, not weeks)
• 30-50% fewer escalations (people know who decides, don't escalate unnecessarily)
• Higher accountability (single owner means no finger-pointing when outcomes are poor)

How it works#

Core decision types and ownership#

Decision 1: Hiring (New Headcount)

Decision: Should we hire for this role? Who should we hire?

Process:

1. Hiring Manager requests headcount (with business case if above threshold)
2. Talent sources candidates and manages process (R)
3. Finance confirms budget availability (C)
4. Delivery Lead confirms capability fit and capacity need (C)
5. Hiring Manager makes hire/no-hire decision (A)
6. CEO/COO informed after decision (I)

Decision threshold: Hiring Manager has authority up to approved headcount plan. Above plan requires Finance approval.

Decision 2: Build-Buy-Partner

Decision: Should we build (hire FTE), buy (hire contractor), or partner (agency) to close a capability gap?

Process:

1. Delivery Lead identifies capability gap
2. Talent models scenarios (build cost, time) (R)
3. Finance models scenarios (buy/partner cost, flexibility) (R)
4. Sales Lead confirms demand certainty (C)
5. COO consulted if investment >$250K (C)
6. Delivery Lead makes build-buy-partner decision (A)
7. COO informed after decision (I)

Decision threshold: Delivery Lead has authority up to $250K annual cost. Above $250K requires COO approval (A shifts to COO).

Decision 3: Promotions

Decision: Should this person be promoted to the next level?

Process:

1. Direct Manager prepares promotion case using competency model (R)
2. Talent validates against promotion criteria and budget (R)
3. Finance confirms cost impact and budget (C)
4. Peer Practice Leads review for consistency and fairness (C)
5. Practice Lead makes promotion decision (A)
6. Individual informed after decision (I)

Decision threshold: Practice Lead has authority for promotions within approved budget. Out-of-cycle or above-budget promotions require COO approval.

Decision 4: Exits (Voluntary or Involuntary)

Decision: Should we exit this person (layoff, termination, managed exit)?

Process:

1. Direct Manager documents performance or business case for exit (R)
2. Talent/HR validates legal compliance, severance terms (R)
3. Finance confirms severance cost and budget impact (C)
4. Legal reviews for risk (C)
5. Practice Lead makes exit decision (A)
6. COO informed before action (I)

Decision threshold: All exits require Practice Lead approval (A). Involuntary exits >1 person or >$50K severance require COO approval.

Decision 5: Capacity Planning (Quarterly)

Decision: What is our headcount plan for next quarter—how many FTE, what capabilities, what budget?

Process:

1. Talent aggregates demand signals from delivery and sales (R)
2. Finance models cost and budget impact (R)
3. Delivery Leads provide capability gaps and demand forecast (C)
4. Sales Lead provides pipeline confidence and revenue forecast (C)
5. COO approves headcount plan and budget (A)
6. CEO informed after approval (I)

Decision threshold: Quarterly capacity planning is COO decision (A). Mid-quarter adjustments >10% headcount or >$500K require CEO approval.

Example: CaseCo Mid#

{
  "canonical_block": "example",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "case_ref": "caseco.mid.v1",
  "updated_date": "2026-02-16",

  "scenario_title": "Decision Paralysis Resolved with RACI Framework",
  "scenario_description": "CaseCo Mid's hiring decisions were taking 8-12 weeks due to unclear ownership. Implementing RACI reduced time to 3-4 weeks.",

  "problem_state_2024": {
    "symptom": "Average time from req to offer: 11 weeks",
    "root_cause": "No clear decision owner—talent waited for finance, finance waited for hiring manager, hiring manager waited for COO",
    "example_failure": {
      "role": "Senior Cloud Architect",
      "week_1_2": "Hiring manager submits req to talent",
      "week_3_4": "Talent waits for 'budget approval' (unclear who approves)",
      "week_5_6": "Finance says 'ask COO', COO says 'hiring manager decides'",
      "week_7_8": "Talent sources candidates, hiring manager interviews",
      "week_9_10": "Offer ready, but finance questions cost rate. Offer delayed.",
      "week_11": "Offer finally made. Candidate accepted another offer.",
      "outcome": "Lost candidate, 11 weeks wasted, team frustrated"
    }
  },

  "implemented_raci_framework": {
    "hiring_decision": {
      "responsible": "Talent (sourcing, process management)",
      "accountable": "Hiring Manager (hire/no-hire decision)",
      "consulted": "Finance (budget check), Delivery Lead (capability fit)",
      "informed": "COO (after offer accepted)"
    },
    "decision_thresholds": {
      "hiring_manager_authority": "Up to approved headcount plan + $200K cost rate",
      "finance_approval_required": "Above approved plan OR >$200K cost rate",
      "coo_approval_required": "New capability (not in plan) OR >$250K cost rate"
    }
  },

  "new_process_after_raci": {
    "week_1": "Hiring manager submits req with business case",
    "day_2": "Talent confirms req is within approved plan (no escalation needed)",
    "day_3": "Finance confirms budget available (consulted, not approver)",
    "week_1_3": "Talent sources candidates, hiring manager interviews",
    "week_4": "Offer made (hiring manager decision, no additional approvals)",
    "outcome": "Offer accepted, 4 weeks total"
  },

  "results_6_months_later": {
    "average_time_to_offer": "3.8 weeks (was 11 weeks)",
    "reduction": "65% faster",
    "escalations_reduced": "From 18/quarter to 3/quarter (83% reduction)",
    "roles_filled": "12 roles filled in 6 months (vs. 5 roles in prior 6 months)",
    "key_insight": "Single 'A' (Accountable) per decision eliminated bottlenecks. Finance and delivery became consultants (C), not approvers, speeding decisions while maintaining financial and capability oversight."
  }
}

Action: Decision Ownership Matrix#

Use this template to clarify decision ownership in your organization:

Decision Ownership Template#

Decision 1: Hiring (New Headcount)

Decision threshold: _______________________________

Process steps:

Decision 2: Build-Buy-Partner

Decision threshold: _______________________________

Process steps:

Decision 3: Promotions

Decision threshold: _______________________________

Process steps:

Decision 4: Exits (Voluntary or Involuntary)

Decision threshold: _______________________________

Process steps:

Decision 5: Capacity Planning (Quarterly)

Decision threshold: _______________________________

Process steps:

RACI Rules#

Rule 1: Every decision has exactly one A (Accountable). Never multiple As.

Rule 2: The A (Accountable) person makes the final call and owns the outcome.

Rule 3: The R (Responsible) people do the work to prepare the decision and execute it.

Rule 4: The C (Consulted) people provide input before the decision is made.

Rule 5: The I (Informed) people are notified after the decision is made.

Rule 6: If you're not R, A, C, or I on a decision—you have no role. Don't insert yourself.

Pitfalls#

Pitfall 1: Multiple As (Accountable) for one decision#

Early warning: Two or more people say "I need to approve this" or "I make the final call."

Why this happens: Senior leaders assume they're accountable for all important decisions. Roles not clarified upfront.

Example: Hiring manager thinks they're A (final decision), but finance also thinks they're A ("I approve all hires over $150K"). Result: candidate waits 3 weeks while hiring manager and finance negotiate.

Fix: Clarify exactly one A per decision at each threshold:

• Hiring manager is A for hires within approved plan
• Finance is A for hires above plan
• Never both at the same time

If escalation is needed, the A shifts to the escalation authority (e.g., COO becomes A for large hires).

Pitfall 2: Confusing "C (Consulted)" with "A (Accountable)"#

Early warning: People who are "C" act like approvers, blocking decisions with "I haven't weighed in yet."

Why this happens: Consulted stakeholders believe their input is required approval, not just input.

Example: Delivery lead is C on build-buy-partner decision, but treats it like approval: "I need to review all contractor options before decision." Decision delays 2 weeks.

Fix: Clarify difference:

• C (Consulted): You provide input. The A considers your input but can override.
• A (Accountable): You make the final call.

Set deadline for C input (e.g., "Finance has 2 business days to provide budget input. If no response, decision proceeds.").

Pitfall 3: Not defining decision thresholds#

Early warning: Every decision escalates to senior leadership, even small ones.

Why this happens: No clarity on when hiring manager has authority vs. when COO must approve.

Example: Hiring manager wants to hire within approved headcount plan, but still escalates to COO "just to be safe." COO spends 3 hours/week approving routine hires.

Fix: Define clear thresholds:

• Hiring manager authority: Within approved headcount plan + budget
• Finance approval required: Above approved plan OR >$200K cost rate
• COO approval required: New capability (not in plan) OR >$250K cost rate OR >10% quarterly headcount change

Below threshold: Hiring manager is A. Above threshold: Authority shifts.

Pitfall 4: Forgetting to inform (I) key stakeholders#

Early warning: Stakeholders learn about talent decisions through informal channels or after the fact, causing surprise and friction.

Why this happens: "I" feels optional, less important than R/A/C. People forget to notify after decisions.

Example: Delivery lead decides to bring on 5 contractors (build-buy-partner decision). Finance is I (informed), but no one tells them. Finance sees invoice 3 weeks later: "Who approved this $250K spend?"

Fix: Make "I (Informed)" a process step with accountability:

• After decision is made, R (Responsible) must notify all Is within 1 business day
• Use decision log or email to document notification
• Track: "Decision made on [date], all Is notified on [date]"

Next#

• Operating Rhythm — When decisions happen (weekly, monthly, quarterly)
• Governance Model — Escalation paths and approval thresholds
• Staffing Gate — Decision process for staffing
• Build-Buy-Partner — One of the key decisions to own

FAQs#

Q: What if the "A (Accountable)" person doesn't have all the information to decide?

A: That's what "C (Consulted)" is for. The A person is accountable for gathering input from Cs and making an informed decision, not for knowing everything personally.

If key information is missing, the A can delay the decision until Cs provide input. But the A still makes the final call once input is received.

Q: Can one person be both R (Responsible) and A (Accountable) for the same decision?

A: Yes, in small organizations or simple decisions. Example: Hiring manager is both R (does the interviewing) and A (makes the hire/no-hire decision).

As organizations grow, R and A typically separate:

• Talent team does R (sourcing, process)
• Hiring manager does A (final decision)

This separation creates scalability—talent can support multiple hiring managers (R for many decisions), while each hiring manager remains A for their own hires.

Q: What's the difference between "decision threshold" and "escalation"?

A: Decision threshold: The authority level at which you can make the decision without escalation. Example: "Hiring manager has authority for hires up to $200K cost rate."

Escalation: Moving the decision to a higher authority when threshold is exceeded. Example: "Hire is $250K cost rate, exceeds hiring manager threshold, escalates to COO who becomes the new A."

Good thresholds reduce unnecessary escalations—most decisions stay at the appropriate level.

Q: Should we use RACI for every single decision, even small ones?

A: No—RACI is for recurring, high-impact, or cross-functional decisions where ownership is ambiguous:

• Hiring (yes—recurring, high-cost, cross-functional)
• Build-buy-partner (yes—high-impact, multiple stakeholders)
• Promotions (yes—recurring, fairness matters)
• Daily task assignment (no—line manager decides, no RACI needed)

Use RACI when lack of clarity causes delays, conflicts, or surprises. Don't RACI everything—that's bureaucracy.

Q: What if we have too many Cs (Consulted) and decisions take forever?

A: Limit Cs to 2-4 people whose input is truly necessary. Everyone else is I (Informed).

Ask: "Does this person's input change the decision?" If yes, they're C. If no (they just want to know), they're I.

Also set consultation deadlines: "Finance has 2 business days to provide input. If no response by then, decision proceeds without Finance input."

Q: How do we handle RACI in a matrix organization where people report to multiple leaders?

A: RACI clarifies decision-specific authority, not reporting structure:

• Someone may report to Practice Lead (dotted line) and Delivery Manager (solid line)
• For hiring decisions: Practice Lead is A (accountable)
• For project staffing: Delivery Manager is A (accountable)

RACI cuts through matrix ambiguity by saying "For this decision, this person is A."

Q: What if the A (Accountable) person makes a bad decision?

A: That's accountability—the A owns good and bad outcomes.

If decisions are consistently bad:

1. Coach the A: Provide decision-making frameworks, require better Consultant input
2. Lower the threshold: Reduce their authority range, escalate more decisions
3. Change the A: If poor decisions persist, reassign decision authority to someone else

Don't respond to bad decisions by adding more approvers (multiple As)—that creates paralysis. Hold the A accountable and adjust if needed.

Q: How often should we review and update our RACI framework?

A: Quarterly or when org changes:

• Quarterly: Review during planning cycles—are thresholds still appropriate?
• Org changes: New leaders, new roles, restructuring → update RACI immediately

Also update when pain points emerge:

• Decisions taking too long → reduce Cs or clarify As
• Too many escalations → raise decision thresholds
• Conflict over who decides → clarify As

RACI isn't static—evolve it as the organization matures.