When explained the way decisions are made in Japan, I encountered a notion that I wish was more considered: the idea that taking a decision is a separate process than applying the decision.
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.
Some companies definitely do this, having seperate "strategy" and "execution" functions for example and often the results aren't great because the strategy part just gets to think "blue sky" thoughts and doesn't need to commit to actually making anything work because they aren't involved in the actual implementation once the decision is made. This can be even worse when consultants do the strategy part as they get to drop slideware and leave others to do the dirty work. Often the slideware is even just ideas taken from the people on the execution side, furthering resentment.
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.
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)
Problem in Japan with that approach is that decision making is more often than not guts-based and driven by seniority/authority than an "open decision" like described in this article.
Not sure if this is what the OP intended. But Toyota famously distribute the decision making process in a process they call Nemawashi[1] which only after they know they have 100% buyin do they officially make the decision.
This week's 99% Invisible talks about this in the context of the Hanko, the personal stamps used in Japan for signing contracts and recording Nemawashi consensus. It talks about how one may join the 100% consensus, but still not be 100% bought in, which may be what Iv was getting at.
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.