Do you need a CEO?
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Thomas Jefferson
Politically I am largely of a libertarian persuasion so believe that the role of any government should largely be to do itself out of a job. For instance if welfare is working it should be creating an environment where state welfare is no longer required. Countries around the world are currently investigating ways that they can cut back the role of the state, some for financial reasons, others for philosophical reasons, and many for a combination of the two.
The philosophy behind such thinking is that complex systems work best when those in a best position to know what needs doing are enabled to do it. In a societal context no one knows your life better than you do so you should have as much control over it as possible.
Now clearly this is a blog about management, not politics, so my thinking is whether the principal role of any chief executive is to make their role largely redundant. Such thinking is way out of line with how organisations are traditionally structured, with a pyramid style organisation chart with the king/queen at the top and gradually larger tiers filtering down from there.
Destroying the office of the CEO
Vineet Nayar, chief executive of HCL, made headlines in 2008 by proclaiming that his role was to 'destroy the office of CEO' at HCL. By flipping the traditional organisation chart upside down you enable employees of all shapes and sizes to make decisions that impact them.
Andrew Grove, formerly of Intel, enthused about a similar approach in Only the Paranoid Survive. He believed that people close to the action were in a far better position to make a decision than anyone in the boardroom who would be so far removed as to be effectively useless.
Such thinking is the reverse of the scientific management that has dominated management thinking for much of the last century but it is increasingly proposed both by academia and industry. Benefits of such an approach include faster decision making, increased organisational learning, better employee engagement and considerably more loyalty to the company.
It also makes the leader accountable to those underneath them, the very definition of the servant leader. As such the role of the chief executive becomes smaller and smaller, as the importance of those further down the traditional chain of command becomes greater.
Of course, many chief executives display psychotic tendancies, and such narcicism perhaps explains why many cling to power in the same way many of our politicians do, even whilst trotting out glib chiches suggesting they are public servants. The wisest, and indeed most self assured, leaders however will be only too happy to confess that there are far smarter people in their company than themselves and will willingly give up power to enable those smart individuals to do great things.
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
Comments
Hi Adi,
I completely understand the theology but I think the concept of "society" is about utilitarianism and this would largely be lost in the absence of 'leaders'.
I watched a programme about Whitehall the other evening and apparently one of the 1st decisions any Prime Minister of the UK takes is what their standing orders are to the Trident submarine commanders in the event of a nuclear holocaust! Do we return fire and potentially spark a global nuclear war? Why not leave that decision to the submarine commander?
In my personal opinion - because (s)he's not best placed to make that decision, especially at the point where the UK has just been targeted and attacked and they've likely just lost relatives and friends.
Without Government - we don't even know if we'd have nuclear capability because the public view on this is polarised. We'd likely end up with civil war and anarchy as the debate decended into the polemic and 'entrenched camps' developed.
I noted with interest the comments from a former Commander of British military troops with regard to the split of "command" in Libya - coalition troops under the command of an American for the pro-active identification and elimintation of military hardware which could threaten or harm the civilian population and the reactive policing of the no fly zone coming under the remit of a NATO commander.
2 or more lines of command are never a good thing in my opinion. In fact any more than 1 single line of command will become divisive; confusing and will result in conflict at some level.
The role of any leader and manager should be situational and contextualised. Sometimes they can be the servant leader or facilitator and at other times they should be very much directional; conceptual; inspirational; transformational and so on.
Again, in strategy there are great examples of how well this is recognised - remove the "head" to disable to the masses. Eliminate or depose the leader to create political change. The Allied Forces attempted to assasinate Adolf Hitler during the 2nd World War, recognising that the German Forces would be debilitated with the removal of the leader. Bombing campaigns around London similarly targeted Winston Churchill and Number 10 for the same reason.
Under fire, you're likely to make decisions with the focus being on self preservation. From the command centre, you're more likely to take a holistic view and make very different decisions.
I think the challenge for every CEO; leader and manager is to recognise the huge benefits that can and should be derived from an inclusive; open and listening culture where the views; ideas and experiences of front line staff are an intrinsic part of the decision making process but I personally wouldn't advocate a call-centre having 500 leaders scattered over a 5 shift rotating pattern and each one deciding the direction and delivery of services.
The research feels almost silo'd. Great organisations know where they want to be going - they have a strategy and a shared vision. Devolved decision making to the point of having no single person responsible for the strategic direction of the company sounds very dangerous in my opinion.
My experience of flat management structures (and I recognise my "command & control" preference is both part of my nature and highly significant in my previous employment experience) is that everyone's 'interested' in what's happening but no-one's responsible for the delivery and there's even less accountability for the achievement of objectives.
I do agree that the CEO as with any other leader or manager forms only part of the wider, holistic team and it's through collaboration; co-operation; excellent two way communication and synergy that truly great organisations function and grow but someone has to be ultimately responsible and accountable for the achievement of the shared vision and ensuring that everyone's working toward the same shared goal and then driving them on to the next goal and the next one.
I agree that in a military context it is often the best approach but surely enabling those with the best information about a situation to make the decision is a good thing? It is incredibly rare in any organisation that the chief executive is either the smartest or the best informed.
I know loads of smart people whom I wouldn't leave in a room with a monkey and a bag of nuts to be honest.
I use the military examples (and it extends to policing and quite probably fire services too) but overall I'm not convinced that EVERY employee in EVERY organisation is capable of making the critical decisions around strategy and delivery to maintain a viable business; enhance the offerings; deliver the performance required and be able to replicate that enough times.
Can you imagine people in a car manufacturing plant deciding to make small improvements to the Toyota they're building to speed up the process and save the employer money whilst perceiving there to be no discernable affect for the customer?
Or o2 staff deciding to have 6 million different price plans for all their customers?
A ship with no Captain?
I'm mainly Theory Y but I think it needs a pragmatic approach too. Even Apple require a CEO (in fact their CEO is very much part of their success as he's created the culture of a high performing, dynamic and innovative organisation who, 20 years ago, were virtually non-existent when I was buying my first pc).
I think organisations need structure; they need roles and they need to fill those roles with the people best placed and skilled to do that.
Technical staff should be the technical advisers; finance professionals should advise on fiscal policy; customer facing staff should influence customer policy but each of these would argue they are the life blood of the organisation and should have priority.
In reality, it's back to the "balanced scorecard" and someone has to gather up all those threads and weave them together into the magnificent tapestry that is the organisation. For me, that's the role of the CEO or equivalent.
"If you can keep your head when all around you are losing theirs......." you've got what it takes to be the CEO in my opinion.
The trouble with the best "leaders" (and I use that term loosely as I don't just mean CEO's, I mean "leaders" in every sense of the term) is that it is perceptively effortless to them, they make the job look easy to the point people think they could easily continue without them. They're subtle; unobtrusive; gentle in their influence and guidance and are able to draw people and circumstances together with incredible outcomes.
Then they leave and their true worth is recognised. Unfortunately, by that time, it's too late.
I'm not sure it's saying that Toyota will have everyone tinkering with car design or O2 having 6 million different call plans. What it is saying is that people lower down the organisation should be empowered to make decisions as they are very likely to have much more knowledge of the situation than someone higher up.
If they aren't then that is a failure in leadership. You mention Apple and that is indeed an excellent example, because Apple can go on very nicely whilst Steve Jobs recuperates from his illnesses precisely because he has done such a good job building the culture there. He has in essence removed the need for his post.
It's a bit like being a parent. It's much better to be such that your child can very much operate on their own two feet than relying on you to make decisions for them.
I'm curious as to why you'd agree it's not okay for uniformed services to make front line decisions but it's okay for businesses? Surely the same concept applies? If you're on the front line (and that's where the term comes from), why not make the call?
Do you think Steve Jobs could now leave Apple and it'll continue in it's current vein ad infinitum? Who'll steer the ship when the terrain changes? If it's the front line staff then why was Steve Jobs required in the first place? They were there before him so why weren't they 'great' before?
I think Steve Jobs made Apple not the other way around. That's why we "parachute" leaders into failing businesses and they turn around. Same staff, different result.
On a personal note, I worked with a team who were the worst at what they done when compared with their counterparts across Scotland (through independent assessment and measurement).
There wasn't concensus on how things should be done so leaving it up to them wasn't an option - it would have created tension; friction and ultimately conflict and that's not healthy.
We changed stuff, we learned stuff and we changed more stuff. We ended up leading the country. Same staff, same resources, different result.
If the people at the front line have the knowledge and the CEO has the (strategic) ability - surely we can put the two together and get the optimum result? For me, it's not an "either / or" argument but a clear case of two heads being better than one.
I'd be more inclined to agree if there was clear evidence that front line staff turn failing businesses around but it tends to be the CEO's (or another significant leader figure's) introduction that acts as the catalyst with all other variables remaining stagnant.
Yes, you're right. My bravery failed me :) Whilst I don't have a great deal of personal experience in the emergency services (lifeguarding aside - ahem), from that limited experience you never delegate upwards during an emergency, you are trained and trusted to do your job. The general manager would have very little input into our daily lives, which was ideal as they didn't know what we did in as much detail as we did.
With regards to Jobs, he has been important without doubt but the culture of Apple comes from the brand and the actions of the employees. His words are just the catalyst. I'm not sure culture is something that can be imposed from the top down, it very much emerges from the bottom up.
Couldn't the same argument be applied to every job role then? Surely, if I'm a good manager at any level, my team can perform in my absence? They do it all the time when I'm on leave or at meetings etc.
Why moderate the web fora on CMI? Let the proletariat moderate themselves in the workplace; in society; on the web; in the workplace?
Should we all get out of the road of progress and let people get on with it?
When you were a lifeguard, did the general manager ensure that you and your colleagues were trained to save lives? Did they ensure lifeguards were available when the swimming was open?
Why was that necessary? Logic dictates that you require training to do the job surely? You didn't need someone stating the obvious.
Did they secure the tools and equipment for you to do your job; make sure your hours were recorded and suitably recompensed?
Was that necessary? You and your colleagues could probably make an educated guess at the equipment you need and when to declare your hours worked.
If people naturally congregate; corral and amicably agree mutual goals; objectives and roles why do we need Theory X and performance related pay?
We shouldn't be measuring how people are performing, they know what's required and they should be left to get on with it? They're on the front line after all - they could tell the CEO and other layers of managers a thing or two about what the business needs and yet we continue tometaphorically beat and entice them with this ridiculous carrot and stick approach to making them work.
Lord of the Flies may be more poignant than just a novel - that insight into the dark area of human psyche and social interaction that watches millenia of instinct being applied in social situation states a few "leaders" will emerge (often through physical brutality) and attract a mass of "followers" through the projection of ideology and theology or ensure compliance through oppression and violence.
Did the culture at Apple develop organically or was it cultivated (or allowed to grow) under the stewardship of Jobs?
Did Christianity; Islam; Hinduism; Judaism all organically grow or were masses of people united in a set of religious beliefs through a single leader? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not comparing Steve Jobs to any religious icon or deity just demonstrating the prevalence in human behaviour to appoint a "leader" and belong to a "cause".
If nothing else, the appointment of a CEO or senior manager stops the conflict that humans will engage in to establish a "pecking order" and I've never worked in a business where the number 1 priority is internal bickering, fighting and sustained conflict so why do the people who know what's best for the business still engage in it?
There's a role for everyone, none more or less significant than the "leader" in all its guises.
A loaded question - if the CEO's superfluous, why has CMI's membership grown and become more engaged whilst that post is occupied by Ruth Spellman?
The difference is noticable but was it just a coincidence? I'm guessing many of the staff are still the same. Why didn't you do all of this earlier? You knew it was necessary.
Did the last CEO get in the road and block progress?
Hi Colin, lots to respond to, apologies for the slowness (you're not going to get me commenting on the boss though - nice try :) )
The CMI forums are set up to be largely self moderated. I don't really do an awful lot of moderation in the restrictive sense of the word. It is more about creating the kind of environment where people can learn and develop as managers, and then sitting back and letting the smart folks that exist in the CMI membership do their thing.
With the lifeguarding, that is exactly right. We were trained to deal with situations ourselves as they arose. That's just the kind of thing I'm talking about, enabling people to make decisions locally. I wrote a few days ago about the impact of IT on corporate culture. When IT provides greater information you get more decisions made locally. When IT allows greater communication people tend to ask for help higher up rather than solving the problem themselves.
It should be remembered that I'm not in anyway suggesting that 'all' managers are redundant, merely that their principle role should be to enable their team to perform to their maximum, it shouldn't be to do it all for them.
that their principle role should be to enable their team to perform to their maximum, it shouldn't be to do it all for them.
Totally concur with this. I'm just unconvinced that the 'team' are best placed to replace the role currently held by the CEO; MD; Chief Constable; Chief Fire Officer or contemporary.
I like the concept of the "situational leader" - leaders and managers and their roles should be dynamic and ever changing to reflect the micro and macro environment and through their ability to read the situation and make sound judgement on what's required; involve the correct quantities and qualities to achieve an optimum result, including facilitating achievement through direction; training and delegation etc.
Where someone ventured into the "online taboo", you'd invoke the powers of your position to regulate and 'censor' but I also think you do this with consensus from the wider community. My preference is that leaders and managers behave in a very similar way - set the tone; allow a high degree of self and peer regulation and only intervene where absolutely necessary.
I personally think it's for the CEO or equivalent to build that 'internal compass' which guides the behaviours and activities of others. The CEO should put in place the foundations on which a stable and successful company can be built.
Hmm, in essence the role of a CEO is necessary, a figurehead and leader is good for a company.
I think more of an issue is the amount of "generals" the CEO has under them, and whether they are there as "yes men" or can genuinely push the CEO and challenge them without fear. A number of companies have too many high level people under a CEO especially for the amount of people under them.
Where if they are of a good enough calibre not so many would be needed thus hopefully ensuring a more direct focus for the company. This in turn will aid the CEO in their running of a company.
If there was no CEO, and left to a team/committee I reckon less would get done as the vision and push would become too diluted.
There's a nice article on so called servant leadership here
http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2011-03/servant-leadership-trust-and-team-pe...
"I love the concept of servant leadership, but I’ve found it’s a tough sell when talking to practicing managers and MBA students. Many have the impression that this group-oriented approach to leadership that emphasizes being resourceful, sharing power and building a sense of shared purpose and teamwork is wishy-washy. Until recently, high quality empirical work to demonstrate the real value of servant leadership has been limited."
Few workers have any idea what their bosses do, so a group of researchers set out to find out. The team asked 94 executive assistants in Italy to keep track of what their bosses did for every 15-minute block of the day, and found that bosses who worked harder and spent more time meeting with their employees got better results. Each 1% increase in the length of a CEO's workday correlated with more than 2% in productivity gains, while with each 1% increase in time dedicated to in-house meetings, productivity rose more than 1.2%.
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6665.html
Nice piece here on this topic.
Steve Brown says: "Management at any level has one major purpose, and that is to create an entity that will function (and prosper) in our absence."
http://www.fortunegroup.com.au/Blog/May-2011/Managers-must-overcome-emot...