Conversation

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
Replying to and
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
Replying to and
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
Though they weren't co-CEOs were they? CEO is a unique position re: ultimately responsible for everything, whereas creative pairs are insulated from a lot of ops, etc. questions.
2
Replying to and
It's interesting that independent creatives get managers/agents to do that work for them, whereas some startup founders/CEOs are just as "crazy artist" as those creatives, but don't get the support they need, and of course they're often not CEO later.
1
Replying to
Producers secure funding and some categories of studio resources I believe. The Hollywood system is very arcane and closer to government than business in some ways
1
Show replies