In one of his recent blogs, William Holstein references a past interview he had with Michael Dell [founding CEO of Dell computers]. In it he [Holstein] acknowledges that in retrospect he should have known that the "2 in a box" model for leadership advocated by Dell at the time wouldn't work. The name of this model ["2 in a box"] was created by Dell as a way of describing his new status as co-CEO with Kevin Rollins. This "new order" was conceived in order to enable him to have more quality time with his family. What was the result? Predictably, the product and company suffered.
I could have told both Dell & Holstein that this plan wouldn't work right away. "Been there, seen it, done that." Joint or democratic leadership is a nice theory but practically speaking, neither work. First of all, it runs counter to human nature. People are like sheep, we want to be led but by a single leader. I will say that the one caveat is we don't want to be led by someone who is foolish or clueless [it's almost too easy to cite George W. Bush as an example but there it is]. Be that as it may, the reality is that we reflexively resort to what Jon Fine of BusinessWeek refers to as the "one guy theory" [he & I slightly disagree on one aspect here: he literally means "guy" which is where I believe he errs but that's another blog] . He maintains that "diffuse power begets confusion" and he is right. I would add that it also yields paralysis if everyone has to agree before moving forward. The key here is that whether you are leading a team or a company, the buck has to stop somewhere and that's with one person. Why? There are at least two big reasons [and probably more]. First, a leader needs to have a clear and unified vision or goal. Diffuse power typically produces a muddier vision. Second, when final decisions need to be made, if everyone has to agree first, nothing will get done. The research supports that when there is diffusion of responsibility, typically no clear action is taken. In general terms, it's just not a successful model but especially not for a large corporation. Michael Dell had to find that out the hard way at the expense of his stockholders as well as his product [quality] and prestige.
On the plus side, once he acknowledged the reasons for the downward slide, he has done what all good leaders must do which is directly confront it and demonstrate ownership of the problem. Personal accountability is a critical characteristic in business and in life. By showing that even as CEO he is accountable for his error and cleaning up after himself [instead of assigning blame along with cleanup to others], he has not only made strides towards righting the Dell ship but is modeling the kind of behavior that most employers want to see in their personnel.
Comments