Others are more critical of the arrangement, and question whether such a structure is truly beneficial to the company. “The co-CEO set-up strikes me as unstable,” says Stanford University’s Charles O’Reilly. “The notion of allocating roles and responsibilities between two senior managers is quite reasonable, but if you try to say they’re both equal, it raises a lot of questions, especially when ego gets into play.” Harvard’s Joseph Bower agrees that such a top-tier structure can be uncomfortable: “It strikes me as an awkward relationship; it can be confusing, and, to me, it represents ambivalence.”
Sloane points out that many larger organizations, particularly investment banks, split other high-level management positions—having dual fund managers, for example. “It can be complicated when you divide the business units and their reporting structure,” he concedes, “but I think it’s an optimal configuration.” Many successful companies have experimented with the co-CEO structure in the past, including Charles Schwab, SAP, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, and Imax. These four, however, have since backtracked to a standard CEO-and-chairman leadership structure. For Motorola, it will be up to the management to determine which set-up is right for the company’s needs.
Birds of a Feather
Though a winning business duo can be symbiotic, with two partners feeding off of each other’s motivation and wisdom to take a company to success, there is also a danger of two corrupt partners allowing each other leeway to breach the boundaries of ethical conduct. Such a relationship was clearly at play between Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, whose combined leadership at Enron resulted in the greatest accounting scandal in modern times. “Corporate corruption doesn’t happen overnight,” says Professor Jeff Cornwall of Belmont University. “It builds from the values partners share, and the common behaviors they model from each other.”
Much in the same way successful business pairs utilize distinct characteristics of each partner, Lay and Skilling had very different personalities, but, unfortunately, it was the perfect mix to nurture a corporate culture that favored cutting corners to get ahead and winning at all costs. CEO Lay, gregarious and generous at heart, was overly susceptible to peer influence, despite his intelligence and knowledge of the energy industry, says Sherron Watkins, whistleblower née Vice President of Corporate Development at Enron. ”He wasn’t very hands-on,” says Watkins, “and this allowed Skilling free rein.” Skilling, whose arrogance and recklessness grew along with Enron’s inflated stock price, came to institute a company culture that ultimately led to ruin. “He ended up with yes-people around him, and didn’t want to hear that something should not be done,” says Watkins. “He wanted things accomplished at whatever cost.”
“The danger is that a bad partnership tends to bring in similar people, and it has a profound effect on company culture,” says Cornwall. “These common behaviors tend to shape the values of everyone around them.” Just as a virtuous partnership at the top of the ladder can inspire those beneath them, a vicious pairing can drag the entire company down. As the billions of investor dollars lost and the more than 100,000 jobs eliminated (including those within dissolved accounting firm Arthur Andersen) attest, a marriage based on dysfunction can have dire consequences.
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