世界需要大老板

    下次看动作电影的时候，留意一下下面这个必不可少的场景：比如，掌权的人在下属中间踱着方步，大发雷霆，发号施令，而且每一次结束的时候，都会补上一句：“……马上！”

    这类电影通常面向的是年轻的男性观众。或许在他们的眼中，老板就该是这个样子。但实际上，在大多数公司中，这样的行为已经不再受人待见。原因很充分：作为管理者和领导者，在处理不易确定或界定的问题时，需要充分利用员工们的每一份智慧、知识、判断、创造性和激情。由于这些条件不能强求，用“马上去做，因为我是老板”这样的预期来提出要求或指示，不可能调动人们的积极性。

    但凡事无绝对。我们曾接触到一家杂志社的编辑部。该杂志隶属于一个大型专业协会，编辑出版人员包括一位主编，以及五位既聪明博学又固执己见的资深编辑。

    主编离开之后，协会决定以资深编辑组成的编辑委员会来代替她的职责。对此，资深编辑们自然欣喜不已，因为他们终于可以自己做主。

    但是，大约六个月后，我们曾向其中一位编辑了解这种安排的效果如何。得到的回答却是“并不尽如人意”。诚然，更大的自主权自然是好事。委员会成员之间拥有足够的自由权，来刊登他们感兴趣的文章。但在这六个月中，杂志却失去了重点。其中的文章林林总总涵盖了许多话题，却没有对话题进行深入挖掘，结果是，读者自然也开始注意到杂志的这种变化。

    对于这样的事态变化，包括编辑在内，没有人会感到满意。但每次委员会试图提出新一期杂志的特定主题时，会员总会对某个特定的点，或者如何展开话题产生分歧。而如果仅仅通过投票的方式来解决问题，则会产生胜者和败者，而所有成员几乎都认为自己的损失更严重。而折中妥协的做法更是难以让所有人满意。八个月后，资深编辑们要求协会任命一名主编。

    虽然公司和其他机构内部倾向于人人平等的领导模式，我们也支持这种趋势，但有时确实需要有人负责。对于动作片中经常出现的“我是大老板”式的暴君领导方式，我们从不鼓励；但如果有人要对其他人的工作负责，那他就无法避免制定决策和行使职权——简言之，就是做一个不折不扣的“大老板”。

    Next time you watch an action movie, look for the obligatory scene when the person in charge goosesteps through a crowd of underlings barking orders right and left, each ending with an emphatic "...NOW!"

    Perhaps in the minds of the young males for whom those movies are usually made, that's how bosses should act. But such behavior has fallen out of favor in most organizations today for good reason. As a manager and leader dealing with problems and solutions not easily defined or specified, you need every possible ounce of people's intelligence, knowledge, judgment, creativity, and passion. Because such things can only be given, not compelled, casting every request or direction in terms of "Do it now because I'm in charge!" isn't likely to elicit people's full commitment.

    Nothing, however, is black and white. We once got to know the editorial staff of a magazine published by a large association of professionals. It was produced by an editor and five intelligent and knowledgeable -- not to mention opinionated and independent -- senior editors.

    When the editor left, the association decided to replace her role with an editorial committee of the senior editors, who were delighted by the opportunity to make their own decisions.

    About six months later, we asked one of the editors how that arrangement was working. Not well, apparently. Yes, the greater autonomy was nice. Editors on the committee tended to give each other real freedom in pursuing articles that interested them. But over those six months, the magazine had lost its focus. Articles covered a potpourri of topics without exploring any issue in depth, and readers were beginning to notice.

    No one, including the editors, was happy with these developments. But when the committee tried to come up with a specific theme for an upcoming issue, members couldn't agree on either the specific point or what to present under that topic. Simply voting on questions created winners and losers, with most members convinced they were losing more than others. Compromising -- finding a middle ground -- satisfied no one. After eight months, the senior editors asked the association to appoint an editor.

    As the pendulum at companies and other organizations has swung toward more egalitarian leadership, a trend we support, remember that there still are times when someone needs to be in charge. We hardly advocate the kind of "I'm the boss!" tyranny seen in many action movies, but there are situations when the person given responsibility for the work of others cannot shrink from making choices and exercising authority -- in short, from being a boss in the best sense of the word.