建立高效得决策团队（Building an efficient decision team）Executives aren't omnipotent - you're either. Having power doesn't mean you're so good at everything that you can make decisions without relying on someone else's help. You can rely on the help of managers, but their views are fair, or from the Department of selfish consideration, sometimes you may not be able to see through.The answer is: relying on the team. In the book Great Business Teams:Cracking the for Standout Performance Code, management consultant Guttman (Howard Guttman) lists how to manage the team's guiding principles. The highest goal of this team organization, who are Guttman's "flat", in such an organization, a key decision is made by a level of the team, the team cooperation, solve all kinds of trouble or answer questions, proposed executives met, and then disbanded.Guttman worked as a management consultant for many years, under his influence, many company executives have become a team to make decisions on the management concept of the fans, two of them - Novartis OTC (Novartis Global OTC) global CEO Orr Gaye (Larry Allgaier) and Mars Drinks President Reed (Grant Reid) together, and Guttman was interviewed at the The Conference Board New York office.About team meetingsSuppose we are now in a crisis of leadership, what can the team do in this way?Guttman: leadership is no longer a person's business. Now theorganization is very complex, there are regional level, Guangyuan, with only one leader to do all of the decision is not realistic. But that doesn't mean that all the members should vote to make decisions about everything. Because let everyone have a consensus is not possible. Effective leaders are able to strike a balance between quick decision making and team participation.Reed: in the past, I took it for granted that I should make decisions, and everyone should be involved. Now I realize that it's not my job to make decisions, and the most important thing is to get the right team involved. The team should have expertise in specific areas and maximize its power. No man is wiser than all men.For many people, arranging team meetings seems to mean he inevitably has to attend a lot of meetings. Did you two spend a lot of time at such meetings?Reed: I actually spend less time in meetings than I used to.I won't have to attend many meetings. If you belong to a leader who has command and control, then you have to attend the meeting to take on your part. If you don't make the final decision, no big decision can be made. But when you have a team that has the ability to make decisions, you can let go of many things.When I took over Mars Drinks, our management team held a global meeting every month. Managers fly from the United States and from different parts of Europe, which is very time consuming. Now we have only four meetings a year, and our entire team holds a scheduled conference call every month so that everyone knowswhat they are doing, and then goes on.Orr Gaye: I have less time to meet than before. Fewer meetings and shorter durations mean higher performance. Because everyone knows what they are doing - they know what they should do. They come to a meeting and finish off without wasting time.Guttman: remember, we don't just sit at the table and say "yes" or "no" to something. It's not the way we do things. This Saturday in my office, I was talking with my core advisors about some of the controversial issues in the company. Last，We assign one of the following teams to deal with the problem - I don't care about that. This is exactly what happens in a company in the form of a team.In the past, leaders thought they were the first hands, so there was no doubt that they should take part in everything. In the above example, he would think he should be involved in the team that was assigned the solution. Actually not.Will there be any danger of setting up too many teams?Guttman: our goal is to set up the fewest teams. Some teams are long-term, some are not. For example, those teams set up for the project, when their needs no longer exist, these teams have completed their mission. If a company builds teams one after another, these overlapping functions can confuse people's minds and make the company dysfunctional.Reed: you can't just set up a team of mere formality. Since theteam was founded, its members sat together and asked the first question, "what are we going to do?"" If there are no real goals, then they want to leave. The team will die.Orr Gaye: I agree with Reed. If the company has no real need for it, a team will soon disappear. Each team has a different life cycle. You give these people a task, they get together, work side by side, and break up when they reach their goal.About the level of team membersWhat kind of problems shouldn't be left to the team?Guttman: when you deal with everyday problems, side issues, technical issues, or functional issues, or you don't need teams. Setting up teams does not add value to dealing with them.Should team members be of the same rank?Orr Gaye: what you want to do is create an environment where they can provide professional advice and can put a lot of things on the table. This does not require everyone to be of the same rank.Do not need the same level? Does this work in practice?Orr Gaye: our company's team is made up of people of different ranks. Sometimes a lower ranking person in a team can add value. When team performance is excellent, people focus on the value it brings, not on what level they are.Guttman: there's no doubt that people naturally think about grades. When a person starts a new job, he first thinks, "who should I report to?" What does he expect from me? When you put many different levels of people into a team, as Orr Gaye says, the only criterion of selection is who adds value.The reality is that, for a given problem, people tend to know more about it than people who are in high places because they have more opportunities to come into contact with the problem. If the status of a team member is unequal, then the team is likely to do a poor job, and a high ranking person in the team may be bad.Orr Gaye: if a CEO doesn't give young, less qualified people opportunities to add value to the team, then his leadership might weaken.About team decision makingIs it possible to say that even with decisions made byhigh-performance teams, does CEO still have the final veto? Did you do it a lot?Orr Gaye: not a lot. If I reject one thing, then it must be specific to a business issue. For example, some teams suggested that a project be cut off, but I thought about it for many reasons and insisted that the project should be kept.Generally speaking, this is because I failed to communicate with team members as early as possible, which items should be retained and which can be cancelled. They may say that theproject takes up so much resources and so much money. But if I talk to them in depth, they will understand the strategic link between the project and the rest of the company.We learn from our mistakes and will do better next time.Reed: if you empower the team and it's clear that the team will provide advisory advice, and each member knows how the decision is made, you rarely have to reverse their decision. You sit with them and measure the strengths and weaknesses of a thing. They feel that their opinions are being heard. The problem arises when the team makes a decision and the decision is rejected without any explanation. They might have an idea. According to my experience, if you and your team members sit together, and tell them you are not prepared to take this advice based on what reason, maybe you are wrong, but now you think things like this, so in most cases, they will say: "Okay, I understand." And still full of energy.There are many different ways to make a decision or conclusion in a team. What is the best way for a team? Will the unanimous approval go through?Orr Gaye: our principle is that you can vote for or vote against, but once you come to a conclusion, everyone in the team has to go all out to carry it out. Different opinions are important, of course. We encourage people to speak their own different opinions.Reed: I feel like I agree and agree. I can minimize the extent of fraud. But as a matter of fact, no decision has been made,including in everyday life, such as where to eat. Because I could not have Tastes differ all tastes., each person's consent. The bottom line is: is it within the limits of everyone? Some things need to be decided unilaterally, for example, I will ask how much the company's daily overheads must be kept under control. Then things should be done like this.Does the role of CEO change in a "flat organization"?Reed: for me, the most important thing is not the structure of the organization, but in mind into a flat organization". You can carry on the old framework, but most things should involve more people and different teams.Guttman: if a company like autocratic leaders like a king, then the company is not long. When the man left, the whole company collapsed like a paper house. So, if you're going to create an evergreen organization, your only choice is to train these high-performance teams, and to spread decision-making power over the team and their members. By the time the conditions are ripe, this will yield great rewards.。