Concept definition The concept of decision-making is mainly addressing the hierarchical structure that governs the flow of the decision-making process in organizations. In that regard, one of the models of comparing the decision-making structures is that of top-down decision making and empowered decision making. In the first case, the decision making process is vested in the hands of the top management as opposed to lower-level employees, while the empowered decision, or the bottom-up approach, is the exact opposite, where the power of making decisions are given to the employees themselves, structured from the bottom up. Comparing these approaches, it can be stated that “top-down decision making often resulted in competing demands, conflicting goals, uncertainty about purpose, stress or temptations” (Michel 35). Empowered decision making, on the other hand, implies collaboration in the decision-making process, in which employees inform management so they can update and refine the strategy” (Michel 35). Article Discussion Keith McFarland discusses the benefit of empowering employees in the workplace. She argues that it will “unleash a whole new level of critical and creative thinking.” (McFarland). According to her, the company, which deems itself as modern, must allow employees to take independent decisions, bring initiatives, and make suggestions about the functioning of the enterprise. She maintains that a good CEO always gets “off the center stage” (McFarland). The workers cannot be reduced to the status of mere followers of someone elses orders. This usually stifles their motivation, creativity and undermines their loyalty to the company. It is quite possible to conclude that Keith McFarland objects to traditional top-down decision-making that virtually excludes average workers and even front-line managers. Overall, the evidence, provided by the author is rather convincing. Still, she deliberately avoids speaking about the advantages of top-down management, which also has its benefits. Often when I give a speech, I’ll ask how many people in the audience work in an organization that has a strategic plan — and most raise their hands. Then I ask, “How many of you feel that your company’s strategic planning process is useful?” Only a few hands go up — usually just those belonging to the presidents and CEOs in the room. Why is this? An audience member once approached me during a break with a colorful opinion: “Strategic planning,” he said, “is organizational masturbation. It makes the guy in charge feel good, but it doesn’t do much for anyone else.” Is it possible that the traditional strategic planning process, once such a great idea, has outlived its usefulness? STRATEGY 2.0. Formal strategic planning became popular first with big companies in the 1960s, after a decade characterized by stable interest rates, predictable (and primarily domestic) competition, long product life cycles, and, relative to today, slow rates of change in most industries. Traditional strategic planning was probably appropriate in that environment. It was usually a lengthy affair, concentrated at the top of an organization, and carried out by specially trained, highly analytical people. But today, traditional strategic planning may sometimes cost companies more than it contributes. More importantly, they often get in the way of real work – especially in small to midsize businesses, where quick adaptation is the key to survival. That kind of strategic planning may be