????青蛙設(shè)計(jì)（Frog Design）的總裁多琳?洛倫佐近日在《財(cái)富》網(wǎng)站（Fortune.com）的一篇帖子中提到了一個(gè)頗有爭(zhēng)議的問(wèn)題：我們已經(jīng)進(jìn)入后CEO時(shí)代了嗎？簡(jiǎn)單回答，非也，原因如下。

????洛倫佐認(rèn)為，管理一個(gè)現(xiàn)代企業(yè)所面臨的種種錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜和艱難挑戰(zhàn)，已非一個(gè)人憑一己之力便能承擔(dān)。對(duì)此，我舉雙手贊成，一個(gè)優(yōu)秀的高層管理團(tuán)隊(duì)對(duì)于企業(yè)成功至關(guān)重要，合作、協(xié)調(diào)和創(chuàng)新等活動(dòng)的重要性也越來(lái)越突出。

????但洛倫佐聲稱團(tuán)隊(duì)決策有望取代CEO來(lái)管理企業(yè)，這一點(diǎn)我認(rèn)為有待商榷。她認(rèn)為：“即便團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)不是目標(biāo)，團(tuán)隊(duì)決策相比個(gè)人決策也越來(lái)越必要，而且適得其所。”

????從團(tuán)隊(duì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)到團(tuán)隊(duì)決策是一個(gè)大的飛躍。很多人都曾經(jīng)實(shí)現(xiàn)過(guò)這樣的飛躍。團(tuán)隊(duì)決策已成為全球很多高管教練、組織發(fā)展專家和培訓(xùn)師們津津樂(lè)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(tuán)隊(duì)決策將最終取代現(xiàn)行模式”。

????如今已有一些大公司實(shí)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(shè)立聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官是權(quán)宜之計(jì)——在摩托羅拉移動(dòng)（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(zhǎng)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(jī)生產(chǎn)商RIM的聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官機(jī)制已宣告失敗。美國(guó)有機(jī)商品超市Whole Foods在首席執(zhí)行官約翰?麥基卷入丑聞后才設(shè)置了一位聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官。美國(guó)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(gè)月收到了一張法院的禁止令，禁止她再進(jìn)入公司總部。SAP目前也運(yùn)用聯(lián)席首席執(zhí)行官模式，我們將繼續(xù)關(guān)注其具體效果如何。這些案例說(shuō)明對(duì)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(gè)人領(lǐng)導(dǎo)并負(fù)責(zé)重大決策的公司，這一點(diǎn)永恒不變。團(tuán)隊(duì)在爭(zhēng)論、建議、執(zhí)行、發(fā)明、創(chuàng)意和溝通方面見長(zhǎng)，但決策力先天不足。下述四項(xiàng)常見沖突已無(wú)數(shù)次地驗(yàn)證了這一原則：

1. 任務(wù)控制和圓桌騎士

????團(tuán)隊(duì)討論中，領(lǐng)導(dǎo)希望團(tuán)隊(duì)成員能從公司整體大局出發(fā)來(lái)看問(wèn)題，但成員們往往因?yàn)橄抻诟髯再囈粤⒆?/span>的專業(yè)特長(zhǎng)而倍感為難。這就是（領(lǐng)導(dǎo)對(duì)）團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的期望和團(tuán)隊(duì)成員實(shí)際所知之間的沖突。

2. 團(tuán)隊(duì)和議會(huì)

????雖然名為團(tuán)隊(duì)，但它其實(shí)更近似于議會(huì)。高管團(tuán)隊(duì)會(huì)議中，每個(gè)成員背后都代表著一個(gè)選區(qū)。而與此同時(shí)，首席執(zhí)行官則期待團(tuán)隊(duì)成員的行動(dòng)能符合整個(gè)公司的最大利益。這是責(zé)任層面的沖突。

????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.