[kqr]

> And you got more information than they do, always

This sounds like a dangerous thing to think. If the rest of my team does not have more information than me, I have failed to convey the important things I know.

My team, on the other hand, has lots of information from the trenches that I might lack.

> In every discussion/project/problem/situation, it needs to be clear who makes decisions

While I understand where this is going, I disagree with the literal translation. Ideally, in a well-run democracy, people will come to reasonable agreement on the next step forward without one single person having to make a decision.

Only when the democratic process of discussion and negotiation fails does a person have to step in and make a decision. ...or at least force the discussion onto the relevant subjects.

[tchalla]

> This sounds like a dangerous thing to think. If the rest of my team does not have more information than me, I have failed to convey the important things I know.

Two points 1) I think the advice is for small teams / startups where I can easily see this happen and 2) One can tweak the advice to "And you got more *context* than they do" for larger organisations

[okl]

> This sounds like a dangerous thing to think.

Very one-sided and superficial, for sure.

> Only when the democratic process of discussion and negotiation fails does a person have to step in and make a decision. ...or at least force the discussion onto the relevant subjects.

One important tool to help the team come to the "right" decision for a project is to provide a vision and associated goals that can be used as a yardstick to evaluate the benefits of each alternative. The "debate" should flow into the same direction.

[itsdrewmiller]

If they have information that would help make a good decision, you can ask them. It's not so easy for them to ask your bosses for the same. If they have information that would have been helpful and didn't share it, who screwed up in hiring and/or training them?