Though Wozniak’s and Jobs’ first “business”—selling illegal telephone hijacking devices to Wozniak’s peers at UC Berkeley—was a bust, when the two set out to build personal computers, they revolutionized the fledgling industry. “Their relationship was harmonious,” says Kahney. “They were a great combination of talents, and they quickly attracted investors.” Apple conducted a highly successful initial public offering in 1980, but profit seemed secondary to the Apple cofounders. “Wozniak was always interested in electronics, and in teaching,” says Kahney. “He’s always been about pursuing personal interests. For Jobs, money is only a means of keeping score; he’s interested in continuing to create new things.”
Though differing personalities have been shown time and again to combine successfully, one thing Jobs and Wozniak have going against them is longevity. Both men departed Apple in the mid-1980s, but it was Jobs alone who returned in 1997, establishing a cult of personality that today defines the company (witness investor panic at his announced leave of absence in January). As Wozniak was never interested in the kind of technological domination that so motivates his fellow co-founder, he has long stepped aside to allow Jobs the reins, showing that even the best partnerships can be fleeting.
Of course, Jobs and Wozniak weren’t the original garage-to-corporate-penthouse success story in the Valley, nor would they be the last. In many ways, their rise mirrored that of Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard 40 years earlier. Like Jobs and Wozniak, Hewlett and Packard fed off each other’s passion for electronic gadgetry. Later, Stanford students Larry Page and Sergey Brin would found Google with a similar partnership based on the mutual embrace of their inner geek.
Sidney Weinberg and Gus Levy: Goldman Sachs
Odds are, former Goldman Sachs head honcho Sidney Weinberg would not approve of being considered anyone’s “partner,” even to a figure so influential on the firm as Gus Levy. Indeed, following his successor’s flattering speech at a company dinner in 1969, the same year his own death forced him out of the firm’s management, Weinberg had this to say: “Those are very nice thoughts, Gus, and I’m glad you feel as you say you do. But don’t you ever forget this, Gus. No matter where I am, I am the senior partner of Goldman Sachs and I run this firm!”
If Weinberg’s rise to power was the classic Carnegie-esque bootstraps-and-janitor’s-pail story, Levy’s rise within Goldman was based on the innovation and creativity that would later lead to the radical revolutionizing of the firm’s operations. Weinberg had an investment banker’s mentality and valued work ethic, stability, and professional respect above all other qualities. Gus Levy was a trader, a workaholic, and dedicated to making as much money for his firm, and for himself, as possible. Said a peer of Levy’s, “He had only one central idea: More!” Together, the two men established Goldman Sachs as a twin-headed Wall Street powerhouse that came to embrace its banking-trading duality, even as the two factions themselves vied for power.
“These were two extraordinary individuals,” says Charles D. Ellis, author of The Partnership: The Making of Goldman Sachs. “Weinberg was smart and tough, no-nonsense. Levy was always looking for the next deal, he was a tremendous worker.” Through his successes as a trader, particularly in the development of “block trading” among investors, Levy eventually managed to make senior partner—but only after a departing Weinberg instituted a managing committee to have one last layer of supervision over the impetuous manager. Summing up their attitudes, Ellis says, “Levy had people call him ‘Gus,’ but to everyone in the company, Weinberg was ‘Mr. Weinberg’ and nothing else.”
The Weinberg-Levy story illustrates that great duos are sometimes forged out of reluctant inevitability. And to be successful, the two don’t even necessarily have to like each other.
Stephen Schwarzman and Peter Peterson: Blackstone
The Blackstone Group has made billions of dollars for its investors, to say nothing of the financial successes of its two co-founders, Stephen A. Schwarzman and Peter G. Peterson. The two former Lehman Brothers cohorts joined forces in 1985 to create what would come to be one of the most successful private equity firms to ever leverage a buyout.
When Schwarzman and Peterson made the revolutionary decision to take their firm public in 2007—one of the first-ever IPOs for a private equity company of Blackstone’s size—they brought the private workings of their buyout empire under a public lens, and in doing so made investors—and the company’s cofounders—rich. Now, as the private equity market sits silent while the world works its way through the recession, the two have been temporarily sidelined. Peterson recently set aside $1 billion of his lifetime earnings to start a charity group, the Peter G. Peterson foundation, which will likely take up much of his attention in the years to come. But Schwarzman, no philanthropic slouch himself—his $100 million donation to the New York City Public Library was among the largest in the city’s history—isn’t likely to recluse himself from the private equity game anytime soon, not while there are still deals to be made.
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