Decision making

Why the CEO is here to stay

February 23, 2012: 11:50 AM ET

Team-based decision-making has become the mantra of many executive coaches, but these arrangements often lead to disaster. Here's why.

By Bob Frisch, guest contributor

FORTUNE -- In a recent post on, 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. More

  • Taming the data that dominates our work lives

    We are nearing the point where every manager will have to use some form of data to support even the most mundane business decisions. Here's how to take advantage of the information.

    By Kishore S. Swaminathan, guest contributor

    FORTUNE -- A few months ago, I received a memo saying that employees in my facility at Accenture must keep their offices clean, subject to regular inspections. As it happens, I am fairly MORE

    Apr 14, 2011 1:02 PM ET
Current Issue
  • Give the gift of Fortune
  • Get the Fortune app
  • Subscribe
Powered by VIP.