Waiting becomes a management decision when you can explain what would end the wait. Until then, it can be a polite way of leaving work without an owner.
Some decisions should wait. A supplier may owe you information. A test may still be running. A customer may need time to confirm what they actually need. Pushing past those dependencies can create rework that costs more than the delay.
But the team still needs something concrete. What are we waiting for, who is following it and when will we check again? If the answer is just "we're waiting for approval," the next person has to reconstruct the situation before they can move it forward.
I'd put the condition beside the task. Name the missing evidence and the person who can supply it. Set a review time. Decide what happens if it doesn't arrive, while there's still time to choose another route.
The rest of the team should also know what can continue. One blocked decision doesn't make every task dependent on it. Preparing the material for review may be useful. Starting work that the missing decision could invalidate may be waste. Somebody has to make that distinction.
This is where status updates earn their place. They let another person pick up the situation without another meeting, or tell the team that the condition has changed. "Still waiting" tells them very little.
A deliberate pause has an owner and a way out. If those are missing, I'd fix the handoff before calling the delay a strategy.