Tacking on: I'm sure everyone has an opinion on "power without responsibility" but the reverse--responsibility without power--is also damaging.
Sometimes dysfunction is caused by giving different people different responsibilities, and giving them only "negative" power to veto or reject, or no real power at all.
This is bad for several reasons. First, it sabotages motivation/fulfillment because people can't feel truly invested in creating and owning the work.
Second, it puts the people involved into a "reject everything, cover my ass" mode, since that is their only way for their role to "add value".
Lastly, people can (sometimes quite reasonably) conclude they are being kept around as emergency scapegoats for mistakes that aren't actually their own, which hurts morale and cooperation.
There is a risk in divided responsibilities: If you don't understand the other person's perspective or area of expertise, the group stops working as a coherent whole.