Shared decision making or central authority ?

Which is more productive method of performing a group task: allowing all group members to share in the decision making, duties and responsibilities or appointing one member to make decisions, delegate duties and take responsibility?

Centralization or decentralization of decision making is one of the key features of organizational framework and it determines the hierarchy and number of levels at each hierarchy. The importance of centralization or decentralization of decisions can also be judged from the fact that the level of centralization determines the level of authority, responsibility and accountability in an organization. In my opinion sharing decision making or central authority in a group task involving decision making depends on the status and magnitude of urgency and importance of decision coupled with confidentiality and oversight that needs to be maintained.

 

Firstly, in my opinion group activities that involve taking quick decisions and actions are more suited for a structure with a central authority as the group may take some time to arrive at a consensus while taking a decision. More over certain important decisions involves taking an overview of the entire situation and a broader picture which may not be possible at a shared decision making platform. The central authority can take all the divergent views under consideration and then take a final decision based on the broader over view. In some situations confidentiality and secrecy needs to be maintained in of the decision. Such situations warrant a central authority more than the shared decision making. An example of this is the investment banking function of a banking company which is in possession of secret information which may have a bearing on the stock price of the company if the same information is used by the research team of the same bank. The bank may separate the two divisions in such a scenario and create a temporary firewall between the two departments with the responsibility of oversight with a central authority. This will prevent leakage or misuse of information.

In some cases when a broad based consensus is required in decision making, shared decision making may be more effective than central authority. Shared decision making also instils a sense of responsibility and belongingness in the team members. The participative form of decision making may be slow but it is much more comprehensive and take divergent views into consideration. Democratic form of government is the best example out of an organization of shared decision making. Its effectiveness is also highlighted by board of director’s format of decision making in companies.

Shared decision making certainly looks to be more ethical and practical way of decision making based on its participative and democratic nature. However in certain cases as highlighted above, particularly when speed of decisions and confidentiality are key criterion of decision making, central authority method of decision making is more effective. However both the methods can co exist in a system depending upon the nature and importance of subject under consideration. Both methods of decision making can in fact complement each other rather than being substitutes.

In the end I would like to conclude by saying that rather than preferring one way of decision making over the other I would like to base the preference on the merits of each method as may be applicable to the particular subjects and situations under consideration. Shared decision making can be preferred for certain key decisions requiring extra due diligence whereas routine matters and subjects can be processed through a central authority method of decision making.