Imagine a quarterback coach telling the quarterbacks to get in the pocket, and then take off running. The running back coach is telling the running backs to be prepared to run a lot up the middle. The wide receiver coach is telling the speedsters that is all about being in position to catch the bomb. And the line coach is promoting the value of sticking together.
During the game, they all execute their plans based on the directives of their division. Everyone has a plan for winning the game, but they can't seem to score a point. Theoretically, everyone is right, but collectively they are wrong. In the end, the team has three options. One, they can blame other units for the collective failure. Two, they can go deeper in protectionism for their individual game plans. Or three, they can get a head coach who sets priorities among the individual units.
The game plan and priority list is all about realistically dealing with the opposing challenges, and nothing personally to do with the talent of each individual or division. This analogy is about discretion - mainly the degree to which it should be dispersed in a given plan. Priority places the ordinal context necessary for individuals and units to understand the freedom of discretion available within a given plan. Either unit plan mentioned above may work as a strategy, but the collective success will require all other units to alter what they originally planned for success.
Democracy rarely works in a social setting. It's even more difficult to execute in organizations, especially if you want to achieve certain goals.