Co-creation isn't dead. But we've been using it in the wrong places.
29 June 2026 | 5-minute read
We've spent years telling leaders to involve more people.
Workshops.
Working groups.
Feedback loops.
More workshops.
We've been told that good change leadership means involving people in everything. And to be fair, there is good reason for it. People support what they help create.
But I think we've reached an interesting tipping point...
Lately, I've been noticing many organisations have become so committed to involvement that they're struggling to make decisions. And this is in part because the pace of change has shifted, particularly with AI.
The decisions arriving on a leader's desk today are arriving faster, carrying more uncertainty, and often affecting parts of the business that nobody fully understands yet.
The old approach assumed we had time, however increasingly, we don't.
This edition isn't about abandoning co-creation all together; it's about recognising where it helps, where it hinders, and what leadership looks like when speed and uncertainty are both high.
#1: Not every decision deserves a workshop
One of the easiest traps in change is treating every decision as though it requires broad consultation. The logic feels sensible; more voices, equalling more perspectives and surely better outcomes? Sometimes that's true. Other times it simply creates inaction and delay.
In my past; when I was a member of one particular senior leadership team, I sat in a workshop where the group was discussing decisions that upper leadership had effectively already made. Everyone knew it, yet nobody said it. Hours were spent debating something that wasn't actually up for debate. The result wasn't engagement, it was pure frustration.
People don't expect to be involved in every decision. Maybe secretly they’d like to be, but realistically they also know it’s not feasible and therefore not expected. What they do expect is honesty about which decisions are open for influence and which aren't.
Try this: look at the next change initiative on your agenda and make three lists:
Decisions people can influence.
Decisions people should help design.
Decisions leadership needs to make.
Be explicit about the difference.
Insight: involvement creates trust when people understand where they have genuine influence.
#2: Consensus is becoming too expensive
Many leadership teams still operate as though alignment must come before action. The problem? The environment no longer waits, because customer expectations shift and competitors move at lightening pace. Meanwhile, leadership teams are still trying to achieve universal comfort before making a move.
Opportunities have shorter shelf lives than they used to. Decisions that could comfortably sit on the agenda for a month now become irrelevant in two weeks.
The organisations pulling ahead aren't the ones making perfect decisions, they're the ones getting to their second decision before everyone else has made their first. That's uncomfortable for leaders who built their careers on certainty. But certainty is a luxury.
Try this: think about the last three decisions your executive team delayed. How many became easier because you waited and how many simply became more urgent?
Insight:Time doesn't always improve decisions, sometimes it just removes options.
#3: Trust matters more than involvement
The answer isn't less involvement, it's better judgement about where involvement genuinely adds value.
One risk with conversations like this is that leaders swing too far the other way. "Right...less consultation, more top-down decisions." That isn't the answer either.
People don't expect to be involved in every decision. They know that's neither practical nor possible. What they do expect is confidence in how decisions are made. They want to know leaders have listened, weighed up different perspectives, and are making thoughtful decisions, not simply the fastest or easiest ones.
The strongest change environments all have one thing in common: trust.
Trust that leaders are listening. Trust that decisions are being made thoughtfully. Trust that information isn't being hidden. And trust that people will hear the truth, even when the truth is uncomfortable. Without trust, more consultation won't help. With trust, you'll often find you need far less consultation than you think.
Try this: think about the last significant change in your organisation. Did people disagree with the decision...or did they disagree with how the decision was made? The answer matters.
Insight:trust doesn't come from involving everyone. It comes from helping people understand why a decision was made, even if it wasn't the one they hoped for.
#4: Stop communicating, start making sense
A lot of leadership development still focuses on communication, influence and stakeholder engagement. Important skills but I think another capability is most important: sense-making.
Helping people understand what is happening when you don't have all the answers yourself. Helping teams move forward when the destination isn't fully known. Helping people distinguish between uncertainty and danger.
Many leaders still feel pressure to appear certain. Ironically, people often trust leaders more when they acknowledge uncertainty honestly.
Try this:the next time you're communicating a major change, separate your message into three headings:
What we know.
What we're assuming.
What we're still discovering.
Watch how differently people respond.
Insight: leaders build credibility when they distinguish facts from assumptions because people rarely expect perfection from leaders.
#5: Co-creation isn't disappearing. It's becoming more selective
I don't believe co-creation is going away, far from it. The organisations that adapt best will still involve people. They'll still listen and still seek ideas from those closest to the work. But they'll become far more intentional about where they spend that effort.
Because time and attention are finite. The question to ask: "Where does involvement genuinely improve the outcome?" That's a more useful one conversation to be having.
Try this: review the last three major decisions made in your organisation. Where did involvement add value? Where did it add delay? What patterns do you notice?
Insight: good leadership is knowing when to choose between speed and inclusion, knowing when each matters most.
Here's the question I'm leaving you with: as the pace of change accelerates, are you spending more time creating process...or strengthening your judgement? Because leadership today isn't about involving everyone, moving the fastest, or having all the answers. It's knowing when to involve, when to decide, when to adapt and how to help others make sense of uncertainty along the way.
Lead Lightly doesn't mean carrying every decision alone, but it doesn't mean outsourcing leadership either.
Frequently Asked Questions
When should leaders involve employees in decisions?
Not every decision benefits from broad consultation. Involvement adds the most value when employees have information, expertise or ownership that improves the quality of the decision. Executive judgement is knowing when participation strengthens the outcome and when leadership needs to decide.
Does co-creation slow organisational change?
It can. Used well, co-creation builds commitment. Used indiscriminately, it delays decisions, creates false expectations and increases leadership friction.
How do executive teams make decisions faster without losing trust?
Trust comes from transparency about how decisions are made, not from involving everyone in every decision. Leaders build trust by explaining what is known, what is uncertain and why a decision has been taken.