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. Mission Control versus Knights of the Roundtable

    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.

青蛙設計（Frog Design）的總裁多琳?洛倫佐近日在《財富》網(wǎng)站（Fortune.com）的一篇帖子中提到了一個頗有爭議的問題：我們已經(jīng)進入后CEO時代了嗎？簡單回答，非也，原因如下。

    洛倫佐認為，管理一個現(xiàn)代企業(yè)所面臨的種種錯綜復雜和艱難挑戰(zhàn)，已非一個人憑一己之力便能承擔。對此，我舉雙手贊成，一個優(yōu)秀的高層管理團隊對于企業(yè)成功至關重要，合作、協(xié)調和創(chuàng)新等活動的重要性也越來越突出。

    但洛倫佐聲稱團隊決策有望取代CEO來管理企業(yè)，這一點我認為有待商榷。她認為：“即便團隊領導不是目標，團隊決策相比個人決策也越來越必要，而且適得其所?！?/SPAN>

    從團隊領導到團隊決策是一個大的飛躍。很多人都曾經(jīng)實現(xiàn)過這樣的飛躍。團隊決策已成為全球很多高管教練、組織發(fā)展專家和培訓師們津津樂道的話題。但很少有人像洛倫佐那樣直言“聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官或團隊決策將最終取代現(xiàn)行模式”。

    如今已有一些大公司實行聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官管理模式。有些公司，如摩托羅拉（Motorola），設立聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官是權宜之計——在摩托羅拉移動（Motorola Mobility）被剝離前，桑賈伊?杰哈被任命為聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官。雖然也有長期聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官的例子，但他們的表現(xiàn)并不出色。黑莓手機生產(chǎn)商RIM的聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官機制已宣告失敗。美國有機商品超市Whole Foods在首席執(zhí)行官約翰?麥基卷入丑聞后才設置了一位聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官。美國漫畫出版商阿奇漫畫（Archie Comics）的聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官南希?西爾伯克萊特上個月收到了一張法院的禁止令，禁止她再進入公司總部。SAP目前也運用聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官模式，我們將繼續(xù)關注其具體效果如何。這些案例說明對于大公司而言，聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官模式不倫不類，絕非勇氣可嘉的新嘗試。

    管理得最好的公司，還是那些由個人領導并負責重大決策的公司，這一點永恒不變。團隊在爭論、建議、執(zhí)行、發(fā)明、創(chuàng)意和溝通方面見長，但決策力先天不足。下述四項常見沖突已無數(shù)次地驗證了這一原則：

1. 任務控制和圓桌騎士

    團隊討論中，領導希望團隊成員能從公司整體大局出發(fā)來看問題，但成員們往往因為限于各自賴以立足的專業(yè)特長而倍感為難。這就是（領導對）團隊成員的期望和團隊成員實際所知之間的沖突。

2. 團隊和議會

雖然名為團隊，但它其實更近似于議會。高管團隊會議中，每個成員背后都代表著一個選區(qū)。而與此同時，首席執(zhí)行官則期待團隊成員的行動能符合整個公司的最大利益。這是責任層面的沖突。

3. 眾議院和參議院

    由于不清楚這樣的團隊更像哪一種議會，審議過程往往缺乏透明度。它是像美國參議院，每個州都有同等數(shù)量的席位？還是像美國眾議院，人口越多的州擁有的席位越多？因此，團隊內部的力量平衡存在沖突。

4. 多數(shù)票和多數(shù)票

    最先由18世紀法國數(shù)學家和社會學家馬奎斯?孔多塞指出的“投票悖論”顯示，不管一個團隊做出怎樣的選擇，其他的選擇可能同時也會獲得多數(shù)投票支持。這是共識的沖突。

    前三項沖突都不容易解決，而投票悖論根本就無法解決。即便是委托團隊做出決策，也總會有一個終止機制，即團隊討論陷入僵局或無法達成共識時結束辯論的方式。終止機制通常是由某個人——老板或者是在平級內指定的一個領導——做出決定。在管理團隊或權力中心內，決不允許懸而不決的情形出現(xiàn)。

    高管團隊重要嗎？絕對重要。越來越重要嗎？毫無疑問。（除特殊情況外）它們會取代個人成為組織機構的領導人嗎？絕對不可能。

    認為“現(xiàn)代企業(yè)將放棄歷經(jīng)時間檢驗的模式，不再相信個人領導，轉而信賴由委員會管理的烏托邦式實驗”。這種想法非常不現(xiàn)實，而且過于理想主義。