Despite their gap in age and experience, the relatively younger Schwarzman and the elder Peterson have worked in synchronicity to make Blackstone the powerhouse it is today. “Part of the reason their partnership works so well is that Peterson is very wise,” says Bower. “So he understands what he wants out of the company and it works out well.” While Schwarzman is considered the more influential of the two, with his hearty appetites and active drive for new deals, it was Peterson, with his business connections and rock-solid work ethic, who provided the foundation for Blackstone’s takeoff. Any business leaders that understand each other so well will be primed for similar successes.
Sandy Weill and Jamie Dimon: Citigroup
While many initially characterized the professional relationship between Sandy Weill and Jamie Dimon as the archetypal father-son business ascension plan, most were shocked when the young upstart “ran away from home” at the youthful age of 42. Before Weill’s and Dimon’s tumultuous breakup following the epic formation of the Citigroup banking conglomerate, the two had blazed through the financial industry, orchestrating a slew of mergers and buyouts that brought together investment, trading, insurance, asset management, and real estate under the two leaders’ broad umbrella. The scope of the men’s operation was vast, and, as a tandem, Weill and Dimon seemed poised to conquer the world together.
Individually, Dimon and the elder Weill were cut of the same cloth, both demonstrating throughout impressive careers their drive, dedication, and hunger for expansion. Weill, bootstraps in hand, was something of an introvert, preferring financial statements and charts to the pressing of flesh. However, such insularity didn’t beget any degree of humility, according to some. “He’s a narcissist,” says Stanford University Professor of Management Charles O’Reilly. “He’s grandiose, often manipulative, and he believes that he alone represents the company. That can be dangerous.” The protégé Dimon, though no such self-proclaimed icon, is well known for his bold and often disarming managerial style. These two distinct personalities melded amiably until increased tensions and in-house squabbling led to Dimon’s resignation in 1998—just months after Citigroup’s debut. Following his departure, Dimon ultimately moved along to become CEO and Chairman of JPMorgan Chase—one of the few Wall Street institutions to hold its position during the recession, largely due to hiss shyingaway from mortgage-backed securities—while Weill stepped down from his empire in 2006. Though all good things of course must end, the 16-year partnership between Weill and Dimon stands as one of the most successful business relationships in history, and should serve as a model for anyone looking to change the world.
Crowded in the Corner Office
While many companies have experimented with the co-CEO leadership structure, there has been no more prominent example than the 64,000 employee-staffed Motorola, which last August brought in former Qualcomm Chief Operating Officer Sanjay Jha to join President Greg Brown in helming the telecom. The two co-CEOs are veterans of the burgeoning telecom and mobile phone markets, with about fifty years’ technology experience between them. Brown, who serves as the operational leader of the pair, has served with Motorola since 2003. Jha, the newcomer, is just a year into his new job, and is widely regarded as the cunning engineering mind of the two, intelligence he’s going to need if he wants to justify to shareholders the $104 million in total compensation he received for his five months of service in 2008.
The tasks facing Motorola in the coming years are challenging; the telecom has seen its market share dwindle in the face of Apple’s domination of the mobile devices field—Motorola suffered net income losses of $4.2 billion in 2008. Motorola and Jha had intended to spin off the mobile devices arm into its own business this year, but the plans have been delayed, according to Jha, “due to the macroeconomic environment, stresses in the financial markets, and the changes under way in mobile devices.” With the company in a precarious position, it will be up to Brown and Jha to prove to doubters that two heads are in fact better than one.
Though Brown and Jha are probably the most well-known co-chief executives of the moment, their shared leadership is by no means the only example of this uncommon executive structuring. Many companies have experimented with the co-CEO arrangement, with varying degrees of success. Start-up technology companies, which generally aren’t managed by leaders with extensive corporate experience, very often split the top role, with Blackberry developer Research In Motion and co-heads Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis being a prominent example. The move is also often very appropriate for smaller businesses that require healthy interaction with clients from the top level. Says Barry Sloane, co-CEO of New England regional savings & loan, Century Bank, “It assures that there is always CEO representation on-site, and we are client-driven, so there are twice as many of us to handle the client obligations that come up every day. It comes down to having more resources and time to give to the cause.”
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