Conversation

In the next decade, I think the frequency of co-CEOing, or a strong CxO/CyO founder-pair will increase and become a more effective pattern than single-CEOing. It used to be viewed as a bad compromise pattern, often investor imposed, but there’s more real reasons now. Yin-yang ftw
13
147
Charismatic single-CEO lasted 40y (1980-2020) starting with Welch and partly reflected the single dominant force of neoliberalism that had only one right way to ride it. Before that 1940-80 was corporatist “Chairman and Managing Director” crony-consensus+servant-leader type.
1
18
The nice thing about a true pair is you can embody a central paradox. In the past (Jobs/Wozniak, Gates/Allen, Page/Brin…) one ended up dominant fairly soon, in a few years. I suspect pairs will be stable longer and longer because paradoxes in the environment are lasting longer.
2
42
Unlike neoliberal era, now there are only crossed currents Bet on China/bet against China Vertical/horizontal More woke/less woke Supply-based/demand-based stack control Capital-facing/consumer-facing If you pick the right eigen-tension to ride with a leader pair, big advantage
Replying to
Cute, but this is a little too robotic. Good for navigation computers not for leadership. Right direction of thinking though.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
i heard about a company ran by 3 ceos: CxO, CyO and CzO every decision was made on a condition that 2 out 3 ceos agree while the 3rd disagrees if all 3 or only 1 agrees on smth - then it's a pass
2
13
The only book I know of on the topic is The Power of Two from 2009 but it’s kinda pedestrian and doesn’t get at what I’m gesturing at… a sort of “only a paradox can eat a paradox” phenomenon Law of requisite paradoxicality
2
7
I mostly work with solo execs but in recent years working with pairs has become more common. It’s tricky but not in a couples counseling way. More like trying to act as an active stabilizing element by sparring with both, individually and together. It’s 4x as hard as a 1:1.
1
13
An interesting part of the challenge is respecting the 1:1 confidences but also letting the 3 1:1 relationship data inform the three-way chats, and getting them to work better together while resisting being drawn into referee/couples-counselor mode.
1
8
3 is too much I think. Though siblings (eg Warner brothers) sometimes seem to pull it off. You’re going to get an idiosyncratic pattern of divided responsibilities
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
any hunch against troika, or pair and troika similar reasoning? (troika w/o a forced 3-way responsibility split)
1
4
I think the checklist from the Power of 2 book is kinda bad. It doesn’t matter if you get score A+ on those 8 “relationship house-keeping” things if the core creative tension is weak sauce. Otoh if the core tension is electric, a lot of those 8 things can be C’s and D’s
1
4
Yeah this one’s also on my list to read. If I ever write a book about this, just to be annoying I’ll call it “Original Famous Power of Two”
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
There's another book, also calles Powers of Two, that's focused on anecdotes from great pairings -- including Lennon/McCartney. It's one of those books that's been echoing through my head since I read it Powers Of Two: How Relationships Drive Creativity a.co/d/ebhx9of
1
8
Seriously though, if you find a good creative partner, grab on… especially in startup world. A true co-founder is like 10x increase in survival odds. I rarely take on super-early stage startup clients, and my most common reason for declining is “you don’t have a cofounder”
2
20