Talk with the manager first and find out what is the issue. Then make a decision whether togo to the owner.
The decision maker is, by definition, the person with the authority to make decisions, whether these entail purchasing products or services, hiring/firing staff, future direction of the company, etc. While it's perfectly acceptable to use a collaborative vs. hierarchical business structure, ultimately the group will need to come to consensus, and a spokesperson appointed in order to take action. If the company owner has delegated decision making to a manager, then it is up to the manager to decide how the company is organized and run.
I don't define decision makers as "right" or "wrong." I do, however, reach out to the individual who will most likely provide the answer I seek (based on their role within the organization).
Doesn't that depend on the magnitude and impact of the decision? In a well run company with a clear organization chart and job descriptions these kinds of issues would not be a problem. Too many unknowns for a clear answer here.
The people chosen by the owner of the company. For whatever reason the owner of the company placed people in a position of consultation. This is often done because the owner is not getting what he wants from management. In such cases the right decision maker is the chosen one, which has the authority of the owner.
If the owner does not trust the manager to make decisions that are clearly within the manager's role, then the owner needs to get a new manager. If it is not clear which decisions the manager can make and which must be referred to the owner, then a governance policy is called for, and since it is the manager who feels constrained then he/she should not feel undermined by a suggestion that such a policy be put in place. But ... it almost sounds like the culture is that the team can oppose any decision the manager might make and can appeal to the owner; in that case there is no need for a manager at all. Not knowing the conditions at your company, I cannot say which is the best route for it, but something needs to change. It is unlikely that an extremely insecure owner will give up any control and allow the manager to do his/her job. So, either the company should save money and reduce friction by eliminating the role of the irrelevant manager role. Or, given the current economic conditions, the company might choose to replace the team with people who are willing to work under direction.
The decision made has to be based on informed position, if there is inadequate analysis of what is it, that the decision has to be made about, facts, timescales, resources etc, then it very doubtful as to any coming up with the correct decision. Context of the problem, current situation, proposal of solution, request decision.
KISS, keep it simple, st***d
Simply put " the one with the right answer." The right answer is the right answer backed by facts.
Its not about who takes a decision.....the important point is what is the decision taken!! Decision must be taken based on facts and with logic and relevance as prime considerations. In order to bring and maintain order in any company, the relevant department and the relevant person in the department must take decisions for that department/job of that dept.
The ultimate responsibility for making decisions has to rest with an individual. If too many people try to be the boss, they spoil everything. There are adviser's and there is the decision maker. Adviser's are not held accountable; the decision maker is.