What are the more real reasons now?
Conversation
Replying to
When there are yin-yang tensions in the world, it’s useful to have a pair of people reflecting the dominant tension. One person is not good at holding a paradox properly.
For eg: a double down on China/home shore the manufacturing running debate at the top
1
1
Replying to
I'm unconvinced. I think the trend is less about external environment than CEO control / perception. Often one "co-CEO" is the "founder" and the other the "management", where it keeps it ambiguous unlike previously explicit CEO/COO or Exec Chair/CEO pairs.
1
1
I used to think it was some kind of personality failing of the founder who can't let go (which I think it still is), but I think it may be closer to my tweet above - ie a specific game of maintain strategic control as "co-CEO" while having the other co-CEO be the manager.
1
Seems like Zuck, Elon, etc. already do this, but using the CEO/COO pairing, but you need their kind of share ownership power to maintain this I think.
Co-CEO may be a way to "still be the CEO" (with the powers you need) while having a "real CEO" actually run it.
1
Replying to
Too early to tell. The patterns you’re thinking of are older than the ones I’m observing.
1
And COO is definitely not what I’m thinking of. That’s clearly a powerful but subordinate role.
1
Though Dan Harmon/Justin Roiland may be a good example. True creative complementarity where the vision has both contributing.
1
Show replies

