Most leadership teams can point to a meeting that keeps recurring: same topic, same attendees, slightly different slide, no actual decision made. It is rarely because the issue is genuinely still unresolved. More often, the decision has already been available for weeks, and the meeting exists to avoid having to own it.
There is a specific tell: when a meeting ends with "let's take this offline" or "let's get more input" on a question the room already had enough information to answer, that is usually not diligence, it is diffusion of responsibility. Nobody wants to be the one who said yes if it goes wrong.
A useful discipline is to ask, before a meeting is scheduled, whether it is a decision meeting or an information meeting, and to name it as such on the invite. Decision meetings need an owner in the room with the authority to actually decide, and an explicit expectation that the meeting ends with a call made, not just a call discussed.
This does not remove the discomfort of accountability, and it is not meant to. It just stops that discomfort from being quietly outsourced to a fourth follow-up meeting that nobody wanted to sit in either.
Teams that get disciplined about this distinction do not necessarily make better decisions. They make them faster, with less wasted meeting time and considerably less organisational fatigue.