How do I apply the idea that distributed decision-making?

The most direct way to practice is through a focused exercise: Audit one week of decisions in your team or organization. For each decision, record: (1) Who made the decision? (2) Who had the most relevant information? (3) How long did the decision take from request to resolution? (4) How much of that time was active analysis versus waiting in queues? (5) Was the decision sent back for revision? If so, why? After the audit, categorize each decision into three tiers: Tier 1 — decisions that could be automated or rule-based (clear criteria, low variability, low risk). Tier 2 — decisions that could be distributed to the person with the best information (moderate complexity, bounded risk, clear parameters). Tier 3 — decisions that genuinely require centralized judgment (cross-cutting impact, strategic significance, high ambiguity). Calculate the percentage of current centralized decisions that could move to Tier 1 or Tier 2. In most organizations, this percentage is above 70%.

Common pitfall: Distributing decisions without distributing information. The most common failure in distributed decision-making is giving people authority without giving them the information, context, and criteria they need to exercise it well. A product manager authorized to set prices without access to margin data, competitive intelligence, and strategic positioning guidelines will make worse decisions than the pricing committee — not because the product manager is less capable but because the information infrastructure was not distributed alongside the authority. Distribution of authority and distribution of information must move together.

This practice connects to Phase 85 (Organizational Sovereignty) — building it as a repeatable habit compounds over time.