Will the leader please stand up?

Is it a good idea to have a mix of people involved in key corporate decisions, as opposed to a single leader sealing the fate of a corporation's decision-making process?

There's a school of thought that believes the 'karta' system of managing a Hindu joint family (where the patriarchal figure is the head of the family and takes all important decisions) is outdated. And then there's debate over whether the female of the house should be hailed the 'karta'. A unique bunch that believes itself to be forward-thinking, feels that no single person ought to lead the whole family because people are different and bring unique qualities to the table - collective decision-making makes a family work, they say.

Recently, Accenture released a study on similar lines, except we're talking of corporations now. In its study, Accenture propagates the concept of a 'Leadership Ensemble' - a mix of leaders at the top who could belong to different disciplines in the company, who are summoned to offer their points of view so that a decision can be taken fairly in the collective interest of the organisation. "This ensemble can change depending on the task at hand," says Robert Thomas, managing director, growth & strategy, Accenture Institute for High Performance.

The study infers that companies can no longer rely on single individuals at the top to handle the complexity and uncertainty of the global environment; and even a fixed team at the top may not provide the answer. The point is to have an ensemble - the term 'ensemble' here means executives, each with a distinctive expertise or perspective, who can be drawn together in combinations suited to specific decisions and who can be reconfigured without significant loss in effectiveness.

This ensemble can be further divided into four groups. The Tiger Team comprises individuals who are able to think and act. The Kitchen Cabinet is a small circle of trusted advisors who are great at decision making. The Advocates are a team of rivals who are great at simplifying complexities and implementing decisions and lastly there are the Operators, who are great at solving structured problems but are terrible with innovation and thinking.

At any point in time, the CEO of the company can call upon a combination of individuals from these four groups to handle a specific task. For instance, if he wishes to address the financial concerns pertaining to investment in the IT infrastructure in the company, he may not just call the chief financial officer along with the chief technology officer into the meeting room. He may decide he needs an 'Operator' type and call upon a mid-level technician to ask about the problems in the current system and why there is a need for something different.

The leadership ensemble structure is a stark reminder of the 'management by committee' concept propagated several decades ago by management gurus, and the concept's viability that has been in question ever since. For instance, the US-based professional speaker, trainer and consultant Marty Clarke believes the management by committee concept is difficult to put into practice. It's good management practice to seek the counsel of internal experts before making certain key decisions. But that is far different from managing by committee where, Clarke thinks, people suggest action items but no one actually acts on them.

So is the concept meant for insecure leaders - who don't want to be held accountable - to spread the blame if something goes wrong? Or for agreeable 'safe' leaders who want everyone's 'permission' before pursuing anything?

Clarke also highlights the difference between a 'vote' and 'say'. A vote equals 'opinion' where people are more comfortable with a leader in place. A 'say', on the other hand, equals a decision undertaken by a leader. The belief is, if there is someone in charge, other senior executives feel relaxed knowing what is expected of them and will actually land up doing things, instead of a CEO conferring additional pressure on them by way of a 'management by committee' meeting.

So is a leadership ensemble concept the perfect answer to today's corporate management problems? Or will it end up in the same bracket as the management by committee theory which has a smokescreen around its feasibility? Take your pick.