I’ve watched this moment happen more times than I can count, and it plays out the same way almost every time.

Someone makes the right call. Not a reckless one. A defensible, well-reasoned call that doesn’t fit the standard playbook, exactly the kind of call the organization said it wanted when it hired or promoted this person for their judgment in the first place.

And then the people paid to say no start showing up. Not because anyone did anything wrong. Because in most organizations, saying no to something unfamiliar is the safer answer for whoever’s asked to sign off on it. A “no” rarely follows anyone home. A “yes” that goes sideways does. So the sign-offs multiply: legal review, then a name on the ExCom agenda nobody remembers adding, then a steering committee, then someone in an adjacent function who “needs to be in the loop.” Five weeks later, the call that should have taken an afternoon still isn’t made.

Nobody told this person to stop using their judgment. Nobody had to. The next ambiguous call, they run it past three people first, just to be safe. The judgment didn’t disappear. It went underground.

Here’s what’s different about this moment, and why it’s suddenly everywhere. As AI absorbs more of the execution layer, the volume of unscripted calls organizations need someone, anyone, to make has gone up fast, at every level.

The old version of judgment was mostly about knowing when to follow the rule and when to escalate the exception. That worked when exceptions were rare enough to run up a hierarchy one at a time. It doesn’t work when ambiguity is the daily condition for people two and three levels below where escalation used to start. There isn’t enough hierarchy left to absorb the volume.

I worked for a division president years ago who’d grown impatient with exactly this issue. He’d stopped trying to write a rule for every situation and started building the team around principles instead: judgment anchored to a few things everyone understood deeply, rather than a manual nobody could keep current. It looked unconventional at the time. It looks early now.

That’s the real gap, and it’s not a talent gap. It’s a capability gap, which means something specific. Organizational capability is the combined mindset, skillset, and operating conditions that determine whether an organization knows what to do next and can actually do it. Most leadership teams have addressed one-third of that equation. They’ve hired the mindset, and often the skillset. The operating conditions, the actual mechanics judgment calls have to move through, haven’t changed at all.

Read the full article here: