Instinctively I would have thought that an individual would take the hard decision faster than a group, but you make a good point that this need not be these case. Managers may suffer from “group think” or other reality-impairing diseases more then the whole team, so a democratic system with a good facilitator may indeed take the healthy and painful action faster.

I learned recently that in economic study the purpose of the firm is primarily seen as a device to reduce risk, especially the risk posed by individual failings of all kinds. I agree that the trend is to democratize decisions in firms for this kind of reason.

Honestly, most middle managerial positions require very little executive decision making. Often they could be best replaced by a mixture of facilitators(rather than leaders) and a more diffuse/democratic punitive structure.

In fact, one could argue the same for much of the executive work at the higher echelons, with firms becoming more horizontally structured, and functioning in parallel. Thus dispersing the ‘control’ style property, and the benefits(and challenges/risks) of it amongst more workers.

Still, visionaries, idea people who have been shown to be skilled at seeing around the next corner, certainly have a value to firms. And compelling ability to inspire, to motivate, to formalize and put into words the aims and directions of a company, these are of value. And even, oft times, a final arbiter is needed, a final word on matters of import.

But these need not all fall to the same singular individual, nor do any of them require autocratic control, nor the risks and pressures that come with, nor the ego-gratification and casual abuse of power that are natural and unavoidable consequences of pyramidal power structures(much of which is so casual, and so natural, so as not even to be culturally visible as abuse).

This piece seems to argue in favor of more centralizing of power, authority, and of course risk. From a humanistic perspective, it is of value to decentralize authority and power, not re-centralize it. Plus, new systems arising in agile young businesses are starting to show that although some leadership roles remain essential(especially due to the short time-cycles involved in small business), decentralizing much of the decision making can be of great value.

Most managers do not get into management due to being brilliant decision makers though. The skill they are most often best at is facilitating teamwork and productivity, and they should be allowed to perform the task to which they are best suited.

Yet that which naturally has arisen from a circumstance is not, by necessity, demanded by that circumstance. Much as from the basic human condition arises violence and extortion, yet we do not elevate these to holy and protected rights.

Yet constructing the argument, so as to disconnect property from the means to exploit… this is tricky.

Some arguments of this line of thinking have merit in my opinion, especially when they suggest market discipline for failed players in capitalism, and instead government applies “socialism for the rich”, as in the recent bailout.

I also agree that an unfettered market is the most productive way to organize economic relations between players of equal power. By that I mean parties who are similarly compelled to trade, not necessarily parties of similar size or wealth.

But there I think the laissez-faire approach fails. In most situations parties are not equally compelled to trade, and then an unfettered market ensures that the party who is most compelled (because they are least able to cover their basic needs if they don’t trade) trades at a disadvantage. A positive feedback loop results that amplifies inequality.

This is an instance of Myth 5: Free trade is fair trade. It is if both parties trade to feed their children, or if they both trade to make shareholders happier. If one party needs to feed their children and the other trades to make shareholders happier, in the absence of any protectionist factors, the parent is screwed by the business.

Fair trade under these conditions is survival of the fittest, except that physical violence is taken off the table (or, more accurately, waiting around the edges of the table and handled by professionals) so that on the table the rule is economic violence. This ideology is desirable only for people who are economically strong and who like prevailing over others.