????下次看動作電影的時候，留意一下下面這個必不可少的場景：比如，掌權的人在下屬中間踱著方步，大發(fā)雷霆，發(fā)號施令，而且每一次結束的時候，都會補上一句：“……馬上！”

????這類電影通常面向的是年輕的男性觀眾?；蛟S在他們的眼中，老板就該是這個樣子。但實際上，在大多數(shù)公司中，這樣的行為已經不再受人待見。原因很充分：作為管理者和領導者，在處理不易確定或界定的問題時，需要充分利用員工們的每一份智慧、知識、判斷、創(chuàng)造性和激情。由于這些條件不能強求，用“馬上去做，因為我是老板”這樣的預期來提出要求或指示，不可能調動人們的積極性。

????但凡事無絕對。我們曾接觸到一家雜志社的編輯部。該雜志隸屬于一個大型專業(yè)協(xié)會，編輯出版人員包括一位主編，以及五位既聰明博學又固執(zhí)己見的資深編輯。

????主編離開之后，協(xié)會決定以資深編輯組成的編輯委員會來代替她的職責。對此，資深編輯們自然欣喜不已，因為他們終于可以自己做主。

????但是，大約六個月后，我們曾向其中一位編輯了解這種安排的效果如何。得到的回答卻是“并不盡如人意”。誠然，更大的自主權自然是好事。委員會成員之間擁有足夠的自由權，來刊登他們感興趣的文章。但在這六個月中，雜志卻失去了重點。其中的文章林林總總涵蓋了許多話題，卻沒有對話題進行深入挖掘，結果是，讀者自然也開始注意到雜志的這種變化。

????對于這樣的事態(tài)變化，包括編輯在內，沒有人會感到滿意。但每次委員會試圖提出新一期雜志的特定主題時，會員總會對某個特定的點，或者如何展開話題產生分歧。而如果僅僅通過投票的方式來解決問題，則會產生勝者和敗者，而所有成員幾乎都認為自己的損失更嚴重。而折中妥協(xié)的做法更是難以讓所有人滿意。八個月后，資深編輯們要求協(xié)會任命一名主編。

????雖然公司和其他機構內部傾向于人人平等的領導模式，我們也支持這種趨勢，但有時確實需要有人負責。對于動作片中經常出現(xiàn)的“我是大老板”式的暴君領導方式，我們從不鼓勵；但如果有人要對其他人的工作負責，那他就無法避免制定決策和行使職權——簡言之，就是做一個不折不扣的“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.