Most organisations that I know of can be split into two groups in terms of how work is delegated. First is classic approach of top-down where boss of a person delegates work to employee. I think most companies use this approach since it's most ancient and most well known in terms of management. When we think about ancient Rome we can already see emperor or rich people giving orders to centurions or slaves.
Other approach is bottom-up where initiative of work comes from the bottom of company hierarchy. Obviously, in most organisations such approach won't work. It's hard to imagine a cleaner giving orders to dean of university. Yet, some IT companies work like that and it may even prove as correct approach for some group of people.
Now, even I split into two groups, it doesn't mean there are only two groups. It's rather a spectrum than finite way of doing things. Some companies may delegate general idea of what has to be done but leave planning and potential improvements to employees. This is an example of mix of both styles of work organisation. I'm not really sure about though if it works as it should.
This mix I write about may have big barrier in terms of transferring context. After all, both sides need to realise, what the problem actually is. Without enough knowledge on either side, results may come out disappointing. Workers may not know important fact that may change their point of view and thus implementation or boss lack of knowledge about a topic may leave distaste when seeing fruits of work.
Now, where is the golden ratio where set of information is enough to delegate to someone but at the same time is not big enough to leave enough flexibility for the worker? I don't know.