????青蛙設計（Frog Design）的總裁多琳?洛倫佐近日在《財富》網站（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，管理一個現代企業所面臨的種種錯綜復雜和艱難挑戰，已非一個人憑一己之力便能承擔。對此，我舉雙手贊成，一個優秀的高層管理團隊對于企業成功至關重要，合作、協調和創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，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。”

????從團隊領導到團隊決策是一個大的飛躍。很多人都曾經實現過這樣的飛躍。團隊決策已成為全球很多高管教練、組織發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“聯席首席執行官或團隊決策將最終取代現行模式”。

????如今已有一些大公司實行聯席首席執行官管理模式。有些公司，如摩托羅拉（Motorola），設立聯席首席執行官是權宜之計——在摩托羅拉移動（Motorola Mobility）被剝離前，桑賈伊?杰哈被任命為聯席首席執行官。雖然也有長期聯席首席執行官的例子，但他們的表現并不出色。黑莓手機生產商RIM的聯席首席執行官機制已宣告失敗。美國有機商品超市Whole Foods在首席執行官約翰?麥基卷入丑聞后才設置了一位聯席首席執行官。美國漫畫出版商阿奇漫畫（Archie Comics）的聯席首席執行官南希?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目前也運用聯席首席執行官模式，我們將繼續關注其具體效果如何。這些案例說明對于大公司而言，聯席首席執行官模式不倫不類，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、執行、發明、創意和溝通方面見長，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來看問題，但成員們往往因為限于各自賴以立足的專業特長而倍感為難。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。而與此同時，首席執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。

????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.