You have the budget. You have the technical requirement. You even have a vendor selected. Yet, the project is dead in the water. You are not alone. According to 2025 data from Sopro, 86% of B2B complex purchases stall during the buying process. The culprit is rarely the technology itself; it is the committee tasked with approving it.
We call this the "Consensus Paradox." In an effort to de-risk decisions, modern organizations have bloated their buying groups. Research shows the average complex B2B buying group has grown to 8.2 stakeholders, a 21% increase since 2015. While the intention is inclusivity and diligence, the result is paralysis.
Gartner’s analysis reveals that 74% of these buying teams demonstrate "unhealthy conflict"—defined as conflicting objectives or disagreements on the best course of action that freeze progress. For leaders like "Transition Tom"—the executive brought in to drive change—this is the primary enemy. You aren't fighting legacy code; you are fighting a legacy decision-making culture that values agreement over advancement.
The cost of this stalling is not just "lost time"; it is measurable capital destruction. When committees delay, they don't just pause value creation; they actively erode the project's potential return. Bain & Company’s 2024 analysis indicates that 88% of business transformations fail to achieve their original ambitions. A primary driver is the time lag between strategy and execution, often caused by decision paralysis.
Most steering committees evaluate the cost of doing something (e.g., "This ERP costs $2M"). They rarely calculate the cost of doing nothing. This is the Cost of Delay (CoD). If a project is expected to generate $500k in monthly efficiencies, a six-month delay in committee isn't "prudence"—it is a $3 million loss.
To get unstuck, you must shift the conversation from "Do we all agree?" to "What is the cost of waiting?" Here is the playbook for the C-Suite leader:
Stop presenting features. Start presenting the daily burn rate of indecision. Create a slide that shows: "Every week this decision is delayed costs the firm $125,000 in missed efficiency." This reframes the delay as an active expense rather than a passive safety measure.
Consensus is a myth in groups larger than five. Adopt Amazon’s "Disagree and Commit" principle. You do not need every stakeholder to like the decision; you need them to support its execution. Ask the dissenting voice: "I know you disagree with this specific vendor choice, but are you willing to gamble the $3M Cost of Delay on another six months of search?"
While you may need 15 people to provide input, you should never have more than 3 people with a vote. Separate the "Consulted" from the "Accountable" in your RACI matrix immediately. If everyone has a veto, no one has a victory.
