Q.If you were a manager, would you decentralise, knowing that it would mean dispersal of decision making authority?

There is no single right answer — you can argue yes, no, or 'it depends', as long as it is reasoned. The key idea is that dispersing decision-making authority is a deliberate policy choice, not simply a loss of control.

The chapter's benefits (initiative, talent development, faster decisions, relief to top management, growth, and sharper unit-level control) must be weighed against the loss of direct oversight, and balanced with centralisation of major policy decisions. …

The idea being tested

The chapter frames decentralisation as a philosophy that trusts lower levels to be competent, and insists it 'must always be balanced with centralisation in areas of major policy decisions'. The box asks you to take a stand and reason it, weighing the six benefits against the real risk of organisational disintegration if units chase their own interests.

Sample response 1 — yes, because the benefits are real

• Develops initiative and builds a reservoir of managerial talent, since people who make their own decisions learn faster than through training alone.
• Speeds up decisions — they are taken close to the action, not routed up and down the hierarchy.
• Relieves top management to focus on major policy, and facilitates growth by letting divisions specialise and compete.
• Can even improve control, because each unit's performance is evaluated separately.

On these grounds a manager would decentralise, treating dispersal of authority as an investment in the organisation's capability.

Sample response 2 — it depends: decentralise operations, centralise policy

A balanced position accepts the benefits but takes the chapter's caution seriously. It would disperse day-to-day operating decisions while keeping the big strategic calls at the centre, and lean on strong control systems (a management information system or a balanced scorecard) so that 'more freedom for subordinates' and 'clear accountability' are not opposites. A company that runs as many smaller units combines the scale of being big with the speed of being small — decentralisation done deliberately, not as a loss of grip.

Sample response 3 — a cautious case for a small firm …