Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you refine point two more? I don't understand how you distribute decision making without consensus? In that scenario "leader" types would make the decisions for the group, right? And then it's not "distributed". I guess I don't understand that point.
My take was that "distribute" means everybody has some sort of decision making power, and the power to make all the decisions is not concentrated in hierarchical fashion. Those who wield the power to make a particular decision are then encouraged to make the decision themselves without garnering a consensus first.
I have not worked under such a power structure, so I can't speak from experience. What I would wonder is how does one know where the power lies? It can more or less become invisible.
I gather it could become somewhat tribal --where while perhaps there are no titles power does reside somewhere. So here bad things are one's fault rather than say a boss's fault. How can you even vent? At least in set hierarchies you know who to blame. you know who the bad decision makers are you know who the asses are. But in this kind of structure it all more or less hidden but decisions are devolved and distributed.
I'm not sure I like the shadowy aspect of this structure. Then again, I haven't formally experienced it --except for informal groups and there you get cliques.