.bh__table, .bh__table_header, .bh__table_cell { border: 1px solid #C0C0C0; }
.bh__table_cell { padding: 5px; background-color: #FFFFFF; }
.bh__table_cell p { color: #2D2D2D; font-family: ‘Helvetica’,Arial,sans-serif !important; overflow-wrap: break-word; }
.bh__table_header { padding: 5px; background-color:#F1F1F1; }
.bh__table_header p { color: #2A2A2A; font-family:’Trebuchet MS’,’Lucida Grande’,Tahoma,sans-serif !important; overflow-wrap: break-word; }
{{ first name | reader }}In The Discipline of Market Leaders, Treacy and Wiersema make an observation that has aged remarkably well: many management teams aren’t teams at all. They’re committees.
The distinction is simple. In a team, every member focuses on a common goal: scoring a touchdown, dominating a market. In a committee, members represent different functions or businesses, and they act to protect the interests of their spheres. The authors call it the stovepipe effect.
Here’s the part that stuck with me. A committee often works fine when things are stable. The failure mode only shows up under stress. When real change hits, committees table the core issues, because actually resolving them would change the balance of power in the room. Few managers volunteer to lose ground in the pecking order. So instead of renovating how the business works, the group reaches for bolt-ons: small moves that brighten short-term performance while the real problem compounds. Fiddling with the fenders and chrome, as the book puts it.
People assume this is big-company disease. It isn’t. I’ve seen it in leadership meetings of every size. The tell is rarely what anyone says. It’s the agenda. The hard cross-functional issue keeps getting parked for next quarter. Every leader speaks only for their department. Nobody argues about the goal; everyone negotiates for their area.
Two things worth trying with your own leadership group:
First, the scoreboard test. Is there one number or goal that matters more to everyone in the room than their departmental metrics? If each function grades itself on its own dashboard, you have built a committee, whatever you call it.
Second, put the most uncomfortable cross-functional issue first on the next agenda, not last. Committees rely on running out the clock. Teams find out quickly that the discomfort was smaller than the drift.
The summary I keep coming back to: teams argue about how to win. Committees negotiate about who gives up what. Once you hear the difference, you can’t unhear it.
Talk soon,
Matt
P.S. When I’m not writing this, I’m buying and operating founder-led businesses for the long term at Eidolon Capital. If you’re a founder thinking about your next chapter, or you advise one who is, just hit reply. I read every note.