Since then, I have wondered why no companies tried to make the processes separate, like we do in democratic countries by separating legislative, judiciary and executive branches.
What can work well is simply being more deliberately thoughtful about decision-making processes. For example Bridgewater Associates (the hedge fund) has internal principles that rather than trying to solve a particular problem, you should imagine you are designing a machine to solve the problem, and also that rather than just doing a particular thing, you think about yourself directing a movie of the thing. This allows you to compare what you're seeing to the "script of the movie" (your plan) you developed beforehand, to assess your outcomes.
The basic idea is that there is almost always value in investing in the "second order" thing (the design of the process, including decision-making processes) over and above the value of just achieving the outcome of the process (ie getting a decision).
If you're interested in the above, it's worth reading "Principles" by Ray Dalio.
Edit: added note about strategy consultants.
Japanese decision making (especially in big orgs) is consensus driven. Multiple stakeholders are consulted, various options considered, all opinions weighed (in theory). This process is, consequently, not very agile and the more stakeholders the more time a big decision will take. Not until everyone is happy is a final decision put down.
But part of this is because once a decision is made, Japanese companies will full-send commit to its execution. And those designated as having the power to execute will execute fully at all possible speed. Attempts to reverse or change course mid-execution are discouraged — partially because decisions on how or what to do in response will take a similar amount of time.
The result is really, really committing to making sure everyone buys into the idea because once the horse leaves the stable there is no turning back.
The drawback to this is twofold: half-baked plans that are forced to be made due to schedule pressure, or decision paralysis that results in maintaining status quos (for better or for worse)
Yeah, and by “consensus” it usually means “tell the subordinates what the boss wants no questions allowed”