Vice Chairman Munger, long seen as a bit of a “silent partner,” originally practiced law, and has never adhered to the same degree of financial monomania as his partner, having also vested himself heavily in the newspaper business over the years. “Until recently, Munger was almost invisible,” says Bower. Likewise, Munger doesn’t emanate the same friendly glow as does his partner, known well for his bristly remarks made during shareholder meetings. Speaking on Wal-Mart, for example, Munger quipped, “Capitalism is a pretty brutal place. But I personally think that the world is better for having Wal-Mart. I mean, you can idealize small town life, but I’ve spent a fair amount of time in small towns, and let me tell you—you shouldn’t get too idealistic about all those businesses [Wal-Mart] destroyed.” He is, nonetheless, as vital to Berkshire’s success as is Buffett, and preaches much of the same principles, founded on the “basic wisdoms” of mathematics, accounting, and human psychology.
Like many other duos on our list, Buffett and Munger have succeeded perhaps because of rather than in spite of their differing personalities. The proof of this is in the pudding: Berkshire gains have beat out S&P 500 growth by 11.4 percent over the last 43 years, a tremendous investment achievement. Buffett and Munger know investing, and it isn’t a mystery why each new generation seeks to follow their lead.
Richard Warren Sears and Julius Rosenwald: Sears, Roebuck & Co.
As most of us can remember the phonebook-sized catalogs issued by Sears for most of the twentieth century, one might be taken aback to find Alvah Roebuck of the Sears, Roebuck & Co. brand conspicuously replaced here by a businessman whose name may not immediately leap to mind. Richard Warren Sears, widely considered one of the greatest marketing geniuses of American enterprise, co-founded the retailer with the watchmaker Roebuck in 1893, but Sears’ ambition quickly outstripped the modest aims of his partner, who resigned just two years later.
“Sears was a marketing genius, very energetic, almost a huckster, but he wasn’t a good businessman. What Rosenwald brought was system and order.” - Peter M. Ascoli, author
Roebuck’s replacement was financier Julius Rosenwald, who proved more up to Sears’ speed. “Roebuck didn’t have the ambition to stick with Sears,” attests Peter M. Ascoli, author of Julius Rosenwald: The Man Who Built Sears, Roebuck and Advanced the Cause of Black Education in the American South. While Roebuck was content tinkering with watches, Rosenwald shared his new partner’s dream of spreading their brand name across the United States.
The two men were as different as their goals were similar. “Sears was a marketing genius, very energetic, almost a huckster, but he wasn’t a good businessman,” says Ascoli. “What Rosenwald brought was system and order, and he built a platform on which to operate.” Sears’ aggressive marketing quickly moved the company beyond the watches and jewelry of its origins, as the Sears brand came to be identified wit consumer-friendly prices and a diverse line of products. Meanwhile, Rosenwald, with his administrative discipline, kept the operation expanding and the sometimes precarious plans of his partner in check.
This perfect balance of personalities between the co-founder and his vice presidentnaturally-widespread success of the Sears Roebuck & Co. brand during the early 20th century. Sales stacked up, the catalogs thickened, and, in 1906, Sears and Rosenwald took their company public, setting the stage for over a hundred years’ worth of retail prominence. The remarkable success engendered by Sears and Rosenwald demonstrates a single-minded partnership between two very different men, and affirms to leaders the net value generated through complementary leadership skills. This combination of the brilliant, at times chaotic, visionary teaming up with the organized and steady manager has been copied many times to varying degrees of success. One of the best-known examples is the pairing of Bill Gates, the software genius, and Steve Ballmer, his first business manager. Another similar pairing is that of William Durant and Alfred Sloan during GM’s early years in pushing the first wave of automobiles. Durant, the company’s founding visionary, and Sloan, its meticulous organizer, played off each other’s complementary talents in much the same way as did Sears and Rosenwald
Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak: Apple Inc.
These days, Steve Jobs is known as one of the most domineering presences in the executive suite and in the boardroom, health problems not withstanding. But the recent dust-up over the Apple board’s failure to disclose the details of Jobs’ illness highlights his individual importance to the company and its potential weakness should he ever falter. It wasn’t always that way. In the beginning, Jobs leaned heavily on partner Steve Wozniak to make Apple one of the first technology darlings.
The pairing of Jobs and Wozniak—two Silicon Valley computer nerds before either term had the significance it has today—demonstrates the success that results when dedication and creative talent are applied in liberal doses. From their beginnings assembling machines in Jobs’ garage, these two entrepreneurs brought personal computers to the American home and workplace. Wozniak was the “engineering genius with a hacker’s ethic,” says Leander Kahney, author of The Cult of Mac. “Jobs brought the vision. He took Wozniak’s ideas and turned them into a business.”
Co-CEOs is another form of shared leadership, which is increasingly necessary in organizations with complex, changing environments, technologies and competitors. Indeed, in chaotic settings it is extraordinarily unlikely that one person will have all the answers, be able to control everything, and can sustain the old heroic idea of leadership. It is certainly convenient to have one person “in charge,” and leaders who are so insecure that they have to appear to be the one and only in order to protect their egos are unlikely to make a shared role work. In my view, leaders with truly large egos are strong enough to share decision-making, high-stakes and credit with a partner or team.
Allan R Cohen
Edward A Madden Distinguished Professor of Global Leadership
Babson College
A well studied post. Considering what makes normal people a great CEO is pertinent as co-CEO’s try to endeavor a common goal with the elegance of perseverance by holding each other from slipping, joining spheres of experience and exposure showing the world what good intentions and great brains could mould together as success path laying foundations that foster relationships both internal and external, marching ahead in pride showing future generation a tint of team work, come what the position be.
Coming to think about few unified success as a resultant of well thought strategies that dominate the CEO’s were combination of gathering information (Gather information about products, companies, consumers, markets, people, services, politics any thing, just anything and everything and disbursing it to right people),ability to convert information into a profit making opportunity, ability to jump from one orbit to next mastering each while on the go are just few to name.
It is indeed convincing now than ever that in such hard times that a duo relationship in the CEO position is a mandatory element than a matter of choice. As we understand that one brain can certainly have its limitations and having another brain to balance, inspire, redeem, aspire, advocate and share is imminent order for many still successfully surviving companies of this era.
I am sure there will be many such success stories of co-CEOs to be said in years to come as we go through most memorable period in history of world economics! Wishing all the co-CEOs much greater success than what history has offered us so far!
Further to Allan’s comment — it takes less courage to defer to one person who is “in charge” and heave a sigh that you are “just following orders” than it does to step up, facilitate debate and champion your ideas to co-CEOs (or co-sponsors) who will sharpen your thinking with very different perspectives. No one ever said that throwing off the chains of groupthink or of placating the boss would be easy. Just as leaders who truly large egos are strong enough to share decision-making, those who report to them also need strong egos to live and prosper in the shadow of their dynamic tension.
Merom Klein, PhD
Director, The Courage Institute International
Co-CEOs is another form of shared leadership, which is increasingly necessary in organizations with complex, changing environments, technologies and competitors. Indeed, in chaotic settings it is extraordinarily unlikely that one person will have all the answers, be able to control everything, and can sustain the old heroic idea of leadership. It is certainly convenient to have one person “in charge,” and leaders who are so insecure that they have to appear to be the one and only in order to protect their egos are unlikely to make a shared role work. In my view, leaders with truly large egos are strong enough to share decision-making, high-stakes and credit with a partner or team.
Allan R Cohen
Edward A Madden Distinguished Professor of Global Leadership
Babson College