When Process Starts Replacing Judgment

Over the past year, we’ve been working through a significant cultural shift to better support a global, distributed team. We evolved our product development process to support more artifact-based work. When colleagues aren’t in the same time zone, clarity has to exist asynchronously, and that requires writing things down: clear problem statements, proposed solutions, working assumptions.

We chose to house these artifacts in a central repository, alert the broader team when a new document was posted, and enable anyone to comment, regardless of time zone, squad, or role. The intent was deliberate. More transparency. More inclusive input. More asynchronous collaboration. Fewer dependency-heavy meetings.

In many ways, the shift created meaningful, positive change, especially for people not consistently involved in the earliest stages of product development, like UX researchers, designers, and content strategists. Intent became easier to track. Context traveled further. More voices could weigh in without needing to be in the room at exactly the right moment.

It also became clear that we needed to refine how this worked in practice. Introducing process is only the first step; shaping it so it works within a specific organization takes attention and adjustment. That realization led to a leadership conversation reflecting on how things were going and where friction was starting to appear.

One area that surfaced was document comments. People were engaging, reading the work, and leaving thoughtful feedback. But there was growing frustration that comments alone didn’t always move things forward. It wasn’t clear whether feedback had been incorporated, discussed, or intentionally set aside. Given how much new process we had already introduced, the instinct for many was to add more. Several suggestions focused on creating clearer rules for resolving comments.

This was just one example, but it reflected a broader pattern. When process doesn’t behave the way we expect, the temptation is often to layer on more process, assuming that additional definition will fix what isn’t working.

In this case, that wasn’t the answer. What we needed was judgment.

Writing something down isn’t the end of the work. It’s the formal beginning of it. Responsibility stays with the author to engage, follow up, clarify intent, and sometimes disagree, explicitly and respectfully. That kind of work depends on judgment and ownership. It doesn’t translate cleanly into rules.

A rigid system for resolving comments would have created short-term clarity, but at a cost. Ownership would have shifted away from the people doing the thinking and toward the mechanics of the system. The real work — the conversations, the synthesis, the trade-offs — would have been replaced by procedural closure.

I’ve been reflecting on that moment because it surfaces a broader tension many teams face as they scale or transform.

As leaders, we introduce process to create alignment and safety. Early on, that structure helps establish shared language and expectations. Over time, though, too much process can erode ownership. When judgment feels risky, people look for permission. When permission becomes the goal, accountability begins to drift. The harder work is recognizing when it’s time to stop adding structure and start reinforcing judgment.

What I’ve Learned to Watch For

1. When refinement turns into process-on-process

If friction consistently leads to new rules, it’s worth pausing. Sometimes what’s missing isn’t clarity in the system, but clarity in who owns the work.

2. When artifacts start replacing conversations

Documents should invite dialogue, not conclude it. When the artifact becomes the finish line, feedback loses its edge and responsibility diffuses.

3. When judgment is expected but not supported

This is where senior leadership matters most. Asking teams to operate with more judgment places real weight on leaders, especially at the highest levels. Judgment only works when people believe their decisions will be taken seriously, even when leaders ultimately disagree.

There will always be moments when judgment is overridden. That’s part of leadership. But there’s a tax that comes with it. Leaders need to explain why a decision is being changed, connect it clearly to strategy or context others may not have, and do so without making the person who made the call feel small.

When overrides happen casually or without explanation, teams adapt quickly. They stop exercising judgment and start waiting, escalating, or hiding behind process.

4. When process is used to surface accountability

The most useful processes don’t dictate decisions. They clarify who is responsible for making them, what inputs matter, and how others can engage productively.

In practice, that means being explicit about ownership beyond the first draft of an artifact, including the responsibility to engage with feedback and explain trade-offs. It means using process to clarify decision rights rather than guarantee consensus. It also means allowing disagreement to surface openly instead of forcing resolution through mechanics or status updates.

None of this is easy, especially in moments of change. Building a culture that relies more on judgment than process asks more of everyone, but it asks the most of leaders. It requires consistency, follow-through, and a willingness to stay engaged when things get uncomfortable. The payoff, though, is real. Teams that are trusted to think, decide, and learn together don’t just follow the system. They take responsibility for the work. And that’s ultimately what makes any process worth having.