CEO will not let in the team management
With the above
In a recent post on Fortune.com, Doreen Lorenzo, the president of frog, raised a provocative question: Are we living in a post-CEO world? The short answer is no, and here's why.
Lorenzo argues that handling the complexity and challenges of running a modern corporation now exceeds the capacity of a single individual. I couldn't agree more that well functioning senior teams are critical to business success and that activities like collaboration, coordination, and innovation are growing more important.
But Lorenzo's claim that team-based decision making will emerge as a logical alternative to CEOs running enterprises gives me pause. Lorenzo argues that "even if team leadership isn't a management goal, group versus solo decision-making is increasingly necessary and falling into place."
Going from team leadership to team decision-making is a big leap. A number of people have made this leap before. Team-based decision-making has become the mantra of many executive coaches, organization development professionals, trainers, and facilitators around the globe. But few have made the case as boldly as Lorenzo has that co-CEOs or team-based decision-making will ultimately displace the current model.
There are a few examples of co-CEOs running sizable companies today. Some companies, like Motorola, have installed co-CEOs as a temporary situation -- in this case, Sanjay Jha was named co-CEO in advance of the spin-off of Motorola Mobility (MMI). Although you can find examples of permanent co-CEOs, they don't seem to fare too well. RIM's (RIMM) co-CEO arrangement collapsed. Whole Foods (WFM) put in a co-CEO following a scandal involving CEO John Mackey. Archie Comics co-CEO Nancy Silberkleit got slapped with a restraining order last month, keeping her from entering the corporate headquarters. SAP (SAP) is using a co-CEO model as well, and we'll see how that goes. These examples suggest that, for companies at scale, the co-CEO model is an oddity, not a bold new experiment.
The timeless truth is that the best-led organizations are those that are run by individual leaders who are held accountable for making the big decisions. Teams are great at debating, advising, implementing, inventing, creating, and communicating. But they are inherently weak at making decisions. Time and again, four common conflicts prove the accuracy of this principle:
1.
In team discussions, members are often torn between the functional expertise that brought them to their places at the table and the leader's desire that they take an organization-wide, holistic perspective. This is a conflict between what the leader expects of them and what they know.
2. The team versus the legislature
It's called a team, but it more closely resembles a legislature. Each team member represents a significant constituency that isn't present at senior management team meetings. Meanwhile, the CEO expects team members to act in the best interests of the overall enterprise. This is a conflict of accountability.
3. The House versus the Senate
Because it's unclear what kind of legislature the team resembles, deliberations are clouded with ambiguity. Is it a group like the U.S. Senate where every state has equal weight, or is it more like the U.S. House of Representatives, in which the most populous states have the most clout? This is a conflict over the balance of power within the team.
4. The majority versus the majority
The voting paradox, first identified by 18th century French mathematician and social theorist the Marquis de Condorcet, shows that no matter what choice a group makes, other alternatives can simultaneously command a majority of the group's preferences. This is a conflict over consensus.
None of the first three of these conflicts can be easily resolved -- and the voting paradox cannot be resolved at all. Even in instances where decisions are delegated to teams, there is almost always a closure mechanism -- a way to end debate if the team deadlocks or can't reach consensus. That mechanism is usually one individual making the call -- either the boss or a designated "leader among equals." In the executive suite or the corridors of power, there is simply no room for a hung jury.
Are teams at the top important? Absolutely. Increasingly so? Unquestionably. Will they replace individuals as leaders of organizations except in rare and exceptional circumstances? Not a chance.
It is unrealistic and unreasonably idealistic to think that modern corporations will abandon the time-tested model of placing their trust in individuals to lead them in favor of utopian experiments in management-by-committee.
青蛙设计（Frog Design）的总裁多琳?洛伦佐近日在《财富》网站（Fortune.com）的一篇帖子中提到了一个颇有争议的问题：我们已经进入后CEO时代了吗？简单回答，非也，原因如下。
洛伦佐认为，管理一个现代企业所面临的种种错综复杂和艰难挑战，已非一个人凭一己之力便能承担。对此，我举双手赞成，一个优秀的高层管理团队对于企业成功至关重要，合作、协调和创新等活动的重要性也越来越突出。
但洛伦佐声称团队决策有望取代CEO来管理企业，这一点我认为有待商榷。她认为：“即便团队领导不是目标，团队决策相比个人决策也越来越必要，而且适得其所。”
从团队领导到团队决策是一个大的飞跃。很多人都曾经实现过这样的飞跃。团队决策已成为全球很多高管教练、组织发展专家和培训师们津津乐道的话题。但很少有人像洛伦佐那样直言“联席首席执行官或团队决策将最终取代现行模式”。
如今已有一些大公司实行联席首席执行官管理模式。有些公司，如摩托罗拉（Motorola），设立联席首席执行官是权宜之计——在摩托罗拉移动（Motorola Mobility）被剥离前，桑贾伊?杰哈被任命为联席首席执行官。虽然也有长期联席首席执行官的例子，但他们的表现并不出色。黑莓手机生产商RIM的联席首席执行官机制已宣告失败。美国有机商品超市Whole Foods在首席执行官约翰?麦基卷入丑闻后才设置了一位联席首席执行官。美国漫画出版商阿奇漫画（Archie Comics）的联席首席执行官南希?西尔伯克莱特上个月收到了一张法院的禁止令，禁止她再进入公司总部。SAP目前也运用联席首席执行官模式，我们将继续关注其具体效果如何。这些案例说明对于大公司而言，联席首席执行官模式不伦不类，绝非勇气可嘉的新尝试。
管理得最好的公司，还是那些由个人领导并负责重大决策的公司，这一点永恒不变。团队在争论、建议、执行、发明、创意和沟通方面见长，但决策力先天不足。下述四项常见冲突已无数次地验证了这一原则：
1. 任务控制和圆桌骑士
团队讨论中，领导希望团队成员能从公司整体大局出发来看问题，但成员们往往因为限于各自赖以立足的专业特长而倍感为难。这就是（领导对）团队成员的期望和团队成员实际所知之间的冲突。
2. 团队和议会
虽然名为团队，但它其实更近似于议会。高管团队会议中，每个成员背后都代表着一个选区。而与此同时，首席执行官则期待团队成员的行动能符合整个公司的最大利益。这是责任层面的冲突。
3. 众议院和参议院
由于不清楚这样的团队更像哪一种议会，审议过程往往缺乏透明度。它是像美国参议院，每个州都有同等数量的席位？还是像美国众议院，人口越多的州拥有的席位越多？因此，团队内部的力量平衡存在冲突。
4. 多数票和多数票
最先由18世纪法国数学家和社会学家马奎斯?孔多塞指出的“投票悖论”显示，不管一个团队做出怎样的选择，其他的选择可能同时也会获得多数投票支持。这是共识的冲突。
前三项冲突都不容易解决，而投票悖论根本就无法解决。即便是委托团队做出决策，也总会有一个终止机制，即团队讨论陷入僵局或无法达成共识时结束辩论的方式。终止机制通常是由某个人——老板或者是在平级内指定的一个领导——做出决定。在管理团队或权力中心内，决不允许悬而不决的情形出现。
高管团队重要吗？绝对重要。越来越重要吗？毫无疑问。（除特殊情况外）它们会取代个人成为组织机构的领导人吗？绝对不可能。
认为“现代企业将放弃历经时间检验的模式，不再相信个人领导，转而信赖由委员会管理的乌托邦式实验”。这种想法非常不现实，而且过于理想主义。
联系客服
