Too many Chiefs?

I was in Milwaukee yesterday presenting a Measurable Management workshop for Fritz Partners and talking about the importance of involving people in crafting solutions. I was giving my well known view that if we want to implement change into the workplace with minimal resistance it is essential to involve those who will be affected by the change as well as those who will have to implement the actions. By listening to and involving these people in developing the solutions they will implement the changes with little or no resistance because ownership will reside with them.
One of the participants in our discussion "Dick Tillmar" a healthcare insurance executive commented that for years he had held the belief that the General should not be afraid to ask the troops for their opinions on what should be done. I was thinking about this during my flight from Milwaukee to Omaha and wondered if this could be viewed by some as "too many chiefs and not enough indians" resulting in chaos. It is essential to realize that having everyone in the organization "thinking" like the General is not the same as "too many chiefs", thinking like the General is highly desirable in terms of aligning the workforce behind the strategy. What are your views?