这在是一个十分符合当下趋势的问题。提出这个问题并不仅仅是因为不久前科技开拓者乔布斯的离开。苹果公司的核心创新人物的离开，使大众感到十分绝望。因为在许多人看来乔布斯是推动苹果公司向前发展的唯一驱动力。但是认为一名CEO是唯一能够改变公司命运的观点未免有失公平，或者荒唐。
但是现在是时候应该去改变这种想法。小到某个行业——出版业，金融，汽车制造业，房地产以及其他行业，大到整个国家时时刻刻都在发生着改变。随着曾经一度强大的经济体的衰落和新兴选手在世界舞台上纷纷粉墨登场，竞争的同时又夹杂着合作；以软件和服务为核心的新兴行业不断取代过时的行业，整个世界变得更为复杂。世界上的CEO们作为领导者也将要独自面临着越来越大的压力。只有建立和保持稳固，灵活，开放、团结的领导团队，CEO才能够更好地迎接未来的挑战。
2010年一项包含1500多名CEO的的调查中，IBM发现79%的CEO认为未来他们所面临的挑战比今天将会更为复杂。这个数据说明某个领导人的观念，想法和经历在未来的环境中，已经不足以保证他能够成功的领导公司企业。事实上，2011年IBM的高层管理人员调查包含的全球3000多名首席技术人员，调查结果表明，CEO 和CIO之间需要达到空前的平衡，两者需要运用IT创新来达到公司的经营目标。
IBM的调查结果表明，即使在目前来说，团队领导力并没有成为管理目标，但是小组决策和单方决策变都很重要，两者也应该及时到位。
值得注意的是，IBM在建立团队领导力上可以说是一个具有多年实践经验的从业者。在IBM的百年历程中，公司已经建立了一个十分强大的管理团队，即使在极具领导气质的郭士纳（Lou Gerstner）离开IBM之后，这个团队也使IBM仍然继续保持强劲发展。郭士纳，被誉为是IBM的“生存转机”，在2002年离开IBM，当时许多人都害怕IBM会出现领导人空位，正如乔布斯离开苹果一样。乔布斯在去世不久前选择离开苹果，此时也是苹果市值和文化影响力处于顶峰的时刻。
但是在后郭士纳时代，IBM仍然是主宰者——在2011年，IBM的市值甚至超过了微软，这是自1996年以来，IBM首次取得这样的业绩。IBM的企业文化和价值观一直支撑着这位蓝色巨人，而在很长时间内，IBM公司都是得益于强大的团队领导力。比如，最近IBM公司宣布弗吉尼亚·罗曼提（Virginia Rometty）将接替彭明盛（Sam Palmisano）出任IBM CEO一职。这在外界看来是意料之中的事情。IBM有为支持高层管理培养资深人员的惯例，这不仅仅是为了继任事宜，而且也是为了保证公司平稳的日常运营。
当然能够从团队领导力受益的不仅仅是高层管理人士。比如GE的做法就是很好的例子。2007年，GE发电部门——通用资格最老的行业，该部门19位高层管理人员在通用的管理发展中心——纽约的克劳顿开会。这也是通用首次将所有的管理人员召集在一起进行领导力培训。结果呢？这些与会人员共同商讨，并且制定了发展计划，包括制定公司规章和新兴市场员工的管理制度，现在新兴市场已经成为通用的全局策略。只花了4天时间，整个团队就顺利完成方案的起草，讨论工作，并开始执行这个被一致通过的策略。
在青蛙设计公司，我们的领导模式，已经从创新型转换到团队领导型。青蛙设计公司的创始人——艾斯林格（Hartmut Esslinger），在20世纪80年代曾与乔布斯和苹果公司有着紧密的合作关系，他于2006年退休，在他管理青蛙设计期间，他只把自己当做是联合总裁，而非公司内部唯一的决策者。他认识到，越来越复杂的市场变化和不断紧密的全球联系要求“团队参与”和集体决策。我们现在雇佣工程师和行业分析师来完善我们的工业设计师团队。经理人要参加周电话会议和月领导人碰面会，在会议上，我们会清晰地描述公司在长期和短期的任务。有多位经理人负责审查公司的通知性邮件，以确保邮件所传达的信息和语气，能够与公司的最终使命相吻合。
当然，并不是所有人都认可团队领导力。据有关消息称，陷入困境的黑莓手机正在检查“联合执政”管理模式的有效性。一些投资人已经明确公开表示，他们希望董事会能够用“一人专管”代替“双人合作”。分析师认为，这样做的可能性不大：管理策略或者是管理方式发生变化的可能性不大。
事实上，今天许多十分成功的创新公司都依赖于团队领导力。Facebook的CEO扎克伯格（Mark Zuckerberg）从一个专家起步，在2008年雇佣雪莉·桑德伯格（Sheryl Sandberg）来当Facebook的首席运营官，帮助他来管理迅速扩大的Facebook。有些人可能认为这是“成人监护”的方式（即一位有经验的经理人被招聘到Facebook帮助一个创业刚起步的年轻人，就像在谷歌早期，拉里·佩奇（Larry Page）和谢尔盖·布林（Sergey Brin）雇佣埃里克·施密特（Eric Schmidt）一样。）但是总体来说团体领导力对于许多公司来说还是发挥了非常明显的作用。
最后，对于创新公司来说能够保持持久的成功的关键是合作。不管员工多么崇拜某个领导者。如果没有人将这些想法或者创意变成摸得着的，可盈利的，扩展性高的事实之前，想法就只能是想法而已。
This is a particularly timely question, and not just because I pose it not long after the loss of tech pioneer and visionary Steve Jobs. The death of Apple's (AAPL) core innovator has been met with widespread despair, because many believe he was the singular driving force behind the company. Yet the idea that a CEO is the only person within a business who has the ability to change the world is daunting and unfair. For such a concept to be the model for American innovation is a risky bet.
It's time for our thinking to evolve. Entire industries -- publishing, finance, automotive, and real estate, to name a few -- and even entire nations are changing. As once-mighty economies suffer and emerging players on the world stage both compete and collaborate with them, and as new business models, often centered around software and services, take the place of old ones, the world is becoming more complex. The world's chief executives will be increasingly hard-pressed to go it alone as leaders. Only by building and maintaining a strong, flexible, diverse, and solidly aligned leadership team will they be able to face the challenges ahead.
In a 2010 survey of more than 1,500 global CEOs, IBM (IBM) found that 79% of chief executives anticipate that they will face greater complexity in the future than they do today. This stunning statistic suggests that the opinions, ideas, and experience of a single leader might not be sufficient for successfully navigating an organization in the years ahead. In fact, a 2011 IBM C-suite survey of more than 3,000 chief information officers worldwide concluded that CEOs and CIOs are more aligned than ever before and are using IT innovation to drive business results.
IBM's findings suggest that even if team leadership isn't currently a management goal, group versus solo decision-making is increasingly necessary and falling into place.
It's worth noting that IBM is a perennial practitioner of team leadership. In its 100 years, the company has built a robust executive management team, which has helped it to thrive even after charismatic CEO Lou Gerstner left the business. When Gerstner, who is credited with the company's turnaround, departed in 2002, many people at IBM feared a leadership void similar to that left by Jobs, who stepped down as CEO of Apple shortly before his death, at the company's zenith of market valuation and cultural influence.
But in the post-Gerstner era, IBM continues to be a juggernaut—even rising above Microsoft (MSFT) in market capitalization this year for the first time since 1996. Big Blue is buoyed by its corporate culture and values, which for a long time have been conducive to team leadership. For example, the recent announcement that Virginia Rometty will succeed Sam Palmisano as president and CEO in January did not come as a surprise to the business world. IBM has a history of cultivating strong senior officials to support its chief executives, making not only successions, but also day-to-day operations smooth.
It's not just C-suites that can benefit from team leadership. Consider this example from General Electric (GE): in 2007, 19 senior managers of GE Power Generation, one of the company's oldest businesses, convened at GE's management-development center in Crotonville, N.Y. It was the first time that all of the senior executives of a GE business went through leadership training together. The result? They drafted a vision statement and developed plans for growth, including focusing on regulatory and other staff in emerging markets, which is now a key area in GE's overall strategy. In just four days, the team efficiently devised, agreed upon, and began implementing a unified strategy.
At frog, we have moved from an innovation-guru model to one based on team leadership. By the time our founder, Hartmut Esslinger -- who worked closely with Steve Jobs and Apple in the 1980s -- retired in 2006, he did so as a co-CEO, and not the sole executive voice in the company. He recognized that increasing market complexities and global connectedness required group input ("group-think" has a negative connotation) and decision-making. We now hire engineers and business strategists to round out our teams of industrial designers. Managers participate in weekly calls and monthly leadership meetings, in which we address short- and long-term issues. Company-wide emails are reviewed by several executives to ensure that the message and tone align with our mission.
Of course, not everyone believes in team leadership. Beleaguered BlackBerry maker Research In Motion (RIMM) is reportedly examining the effectiveness of its co-CEO model. Some shareholders have made it very clear, publicly, that they'd like to see the board of directors replace the top two executives with one decision-maker. Analysts don't believe this will happen: "Change in strategy or management is unlikely," Pierre Ferragu of Sanford C. Bernstein recently wrote in a note to investors.
Indeed, some of today's most innovative and successful companies rely on team leadership. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg-- who began as a guru of sorts -- in 2008 hired Sheryl Sandberg as chief operating officer to help govern the rapidly expanding and influential business. Some might say this is an example of "adult supervision" (i.e., an experienced manager being brought in to support a young startup founder, in the way that Google's (GOOG) Larry Page and Sergey Brin hired Eric Schmidt as CEO in the early days). But it is also a team-leadership strategy that has obviously paid off for many companies.
Ultimately, collaboration is the key to sustained success at any innovative company -- no matter how much employees may admire a single figurehead. Ideas are only ideas until a team of people makes them real, profitable, and scalable over the long-term.
