A decision authority matrix for startups

Assigning work does not automatically delegate authority

An employee tasked with handling complaints but unsure when they may offer an exchange or refund must send each case to the owner. The issue may not be initiative; they may lack authority, data or standards for deciding.

GitLab publicly describes linking decisions to a Directly Responsible Individual, who collects data and considers options. BHKD applies the principle of clear ownership in the simple table below; this is not a copy of GitLab’s entire model.

A matrix template you can fill in immediately

The figures in the table are hypothetical illustrations. Businesses must set limits appropriate to their margins, terms, risks and staff capabilities. Do not merely set a financial ceiling and assume every case below it is safe.

For each row, add where evidence is stored, the required response time and a backup when the owner is absent. If two people can make the final decision, clarify when authority passes from one to the other.

Separate three levels: decide, consult and seek approval

Decide: the owner makes the decision within the agreed scope and updates others afterward. Consult: the owner asks people with relevant data but remains responsible for deciding. Seek approval: a designated approver must authorize the action before any external commitment.

For example, the coordinator can consult the warehouse to confirm delivery capacity, rather than requiring both the warehouse and sales to approve a minor change. For compensation beyond the permitted range, the owner must seek approval. The distinction is who makes the final decision and when action is allowed.

Good boundaries must also describe exceptions

A small refund can still involve a sensitive complaint or signs of fraud. A change with no added cost can still affect customer data. Add out-of-scope conditions based on impact and how difficult the decision is to reverse.

Define a specific escalation method: send a situation summary, two options, impacts and the decision deadline. No response does not mean automatic approval. The business must agree on what to do when the approver is absent, especially for commitments that are hard to withdraw.

A decision log enables review without approving everything again

A brief template includes: date, issue, decision owner, information used, chosen option, applicable limits and review date. Record only decisions important enough to learn from or trace; do not turn every routine action into a report.

In a hypothetical situation, a customer service manager refunds VND 600,000 under the returns policy, but the customer continues complaining. The log helps determine whether the problem lies in the policy, evidence or a pre-sale promise. If the founder looks only at the refund amount, it is easy to address the wrong cause.

Test for a week and assess both speed and quality

Measure time from the issue arising to a decision, escalation frequency and decisions that need correction. If escalations fall but errors rise, add data, training or narrow the scope. If everything still returns to the founder, check whether the new authority is respected or arbitrarily overridden.

Once the rules work, incorporate them into SOPs and task assignment documents. Decision authority does not stand alone: it needs clear outputs, people who understand the work and a feedback rhythm that enables early adjustment.

Suggested actions