Lately I've noticed a trend: issues that I understood to be resolved are reviewed, re-opened, and reconsidered.
Now, on the one hand, I'm a fan. It makes sense to go back to a decision if new information has become available or if an assumption originally used to reach consensus has been challenged. A steadfast determination to never alter one's course is how we run into icebergs. Right, Captain Smith?
But on the other hand, re-opening a closed decision can be a form of passive-aggressive veto. "Hey you can't hold me accountable for my tasks, because the whole project is back on the drawing board!" If nothing is every truly resolved, how can anyone be responsible for the successful completion of the plan?
And on the third hand, the one that the zombie is probably gnawing on.... sometimes we have pure zombie decisions. They claw their way out of the grave, whispering in your ear that maybe you made a mistake...maybe you should have gone the other way...it's not too late...nothing is set in stone...why not reconsider...
In the consumer world, that's called buyer's remorse. In the corporate world, that's called "the-boss-has-flip-flopped-AGAIN-so-we-have-to-rework-the-work-again." Not as catchy, but accurate.
If you occasionally revisit decisions and with careful deliberation change your mind, good for you; you are a thoughtful leader. If, however, you are surrounded by the grisly remains of decisions who routinely rise from their graves and trample your villagers - it might be time to stay the course and see what happens.