In order to improve the quality of decisions it is important to evaluate them at the time of deciding. One approach, advocated by Norman Maier, is to decide.

What is the objective quality of the decision? Was the full process of decision-making adopted, i.e., diagnosing all facts, evaluating them, developing alternatives; it so, the decision should be high-quality. The more technical the problem, the more a quality decision will solve it.
What is the amount of acceptance of the decision by subordinates? Difficulty would ensue if quality considerations conflicted with acceptance. Subordinates may resist a decision they thought was made with insufficient facts or inaccurate logic. A manager can, of course, compel or persuade subordinates to accept the decision. The more people are involved in a problem, the less likely a decision based on ‘quality’ would be sufficient.

Maier suggested managers should evaluate each problem to see how they can increase the effectiveness of decisions by seeing how important it was to have quality and/or acceptance :

Where high quality is important, not high ( in financial areas, for example, acceptance is not so important);
Where acceptance is more important than quality (group decisions help here to ensure a solution is made to work);
Where both high quality and acceptance is needed, e.g., a change in the wage payment system. This could be solved by management stating its views, but a better (more acceptable) way would be to lead group discussions to reach an acceptable solution.   _{Your Comment}