5 ms·

Even more interesting > "Red Hat's CEO for the past 12 years moves to take on the role of IBM president"

abrowne 7y ago
Here's IBM release about that: https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind-Krishna-Elected-IBM-Chief-Executive-Officer https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind-Krishna-Elected-I... President seems like second-in-command, below CEO. (And the outgoing CEO was both.) Am I understanding that right?
- cpetty 7y ago
  Correct -- Ginni Rometty was CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board. She remains Chairman, while Arvind Krishna is now CEO and Whitehurst is President. This is the first time in a while that the IBM President & CEO roles have been divided among two different people.
  - lowdose 7y ago
    The president title was a thing for people claiming the top spot without being the founder. It doesn't make sense to split CEO & President role between two people, but when the fable is told long enough the people who tell believe it themselves.
    - cachestash 7y ago
      Its the co-CEO strategy, or two in box. Its becoming quite popular as of late.
      - stingraycharles 7y ago
        Why is that? I can’t imagine it going well for an extended period of time.
        lowdose 7y ago
        It's a safety scapegoat, just throw the president under the bus.
        Jedd 7y ago
        > I can’t imagine it going well for an extended period of time. Why is that? I don't think there are many modern examples, but the idea of consensus based decision making isn't new, and doesn't appear to be intrinsically flawed. Consider the origin of the word triumvirate. While the first one ended less than optimally for all concerned, we have a slightly less violent way of dealing with organisational promotion and succession now. Personally I love the idea of having three equal heads of state, especially if their decision and voting behaviours are obliged to be published. But I also like the idea of proper democracy. I'm Australian, and I don't think we have an actual democracy here - just a poor facsimile. I think in the USA it's even more distant.
        bhewes 7y ago
        The Swiss Federal Council is an example.
      - icelancer 7y ago
        It doesn't have to be a strict two in the box situation. I am the President of my company and I brought on a CEO. I have neither the inclination nor the skillset to take on CEO-related tasks, but I head up corporate strategy and other tasks. We both have circles of unilateral action, and we have some areas where we overlap. At the end of the day I hold a plurality (and currently a majority) of shares and I'm the sole founder, but unfit to be the CEO, at least in my opinion. It's another form of delegation.
dang 7y ago
Has the article buried the lede? Should we make this the title above?
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Whitehurst becoming IBM president is sort of old news, but I cannot find a discussion on HN about it. (only a few posts without discussion). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22205335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22205335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22198016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22198016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200653 There was discussion about the matter on the post about Arvind Krishna becoming IBM CEO, but it was somewhat buried: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22196489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22196489
oh_sigh 7y ago
What exactly is happening when the lead of a smaller acquired company ends up running the acquiring company? Surely there must be a lot of pre-acquisition people near the top who are salty about losing their chance?
walkingolof 7y ago
RedHat is slowly becoming the new IBM...
m463 7y ago
Robert X Cringely saw this sort of movement 1 1/2 years ago: https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/ https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/

Here's IBM release about that: https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind-Krishna-Elected-IBM-Chief-Executive-Officer https://newsroom.ibm.com/2020-01-30-Arvind-Krishna-Elected-I... President seems like second-in-command, below CEO. (And the outgoing CEO was both.) Am I understanding that right?

cpetty 7y ago
Correct -- Ginni Rometty was CEO, President, and Chairman of the Board. She remains Chairman, while Arvind Krishna is now CEO and Whitehurst is President. This is the first time in a while that the IBM President & CEO roles have been divided among two different people.
- lowdose 7y ago
  The president title was a thing for people claiming the top spot without being the founder. It doesn't make sense to split CEO & President role between two people, but when the fable is told long enough the people who tell believe it themselves.
  - cachestash 7y ago
    Its the co-CEO strategy, or two in box. Its becoming quite popular as of late.
    - stingraycharles 7y ago
      Why is that? I can’t imagine it going well for an extended period of time.
      - lowdose 7y ago
        It's a safety scapegoat, just throw the president under the bus.
      - Jedd 7y ago
        > I can’t imagine it going well for an extended period of time. Why is that? I don't think there are many modern examples, but the idea of consensus based decision making isn't new, and doesn't appear to be intrinsically flawed. Consider the origin of the word triumvirate. While the first one ended less than optimally for all concerned, we have a slightly less violent way of dealing with organisational promotion and succession now. Personally I love the idea of having three equal heads of state, especially if their decision and voting behaviours are obliged to be published. But I also like the idea of proper democracy. I'm Australian, and I don't think we have an actual democracy here - just a poor facsimile. I think in the USA it's even more distant.
        bhewes 7y ago
        The Swiss Federal Council is an example.
    - icelancer 7y ago
      It doesn't have to be a strict two in the box situation. I am the President of my company and I brought on a CEO. I have neither the inclination nor the skillset to take on CEO-related tasks, but I head up corporate strategy and other tasks. We both have circles of unilateral action, and we have some areas where we overlap. At the end of the day I hold a plurality (and currently a majority) of shares and I'm the sole founder, but unfit to be the CEO, at least in my opinion. It's another form of delegation.

dang 7y ago

Has the article buried the lede? Should we make this the title above?

CameronNemo 7y ago
Whitehurst becoming IBM president is sort of old news, but I cannot find a discussion on HN about it. (only a few posts without discussion). https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22205335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22205335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22198016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22198016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200653 There was discussion about the matter on the post about Arvind Krishna becoming IBM CEO, but it was somewhat buried: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22196489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22196489

oh_sigh 7y ago

What exactly is happening when the lead of a smaller acquired company ends up running the acquiring company? Surely there must be a lot of pre-acquisition people near the top who are salty about losing their chance?

walkingolof 7y ago

RedHat is slowly becoming the new IBM...

m463 7y ago

Robert X Cringely saw this sort of movement 1 1/2 years ago: https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/ https://www.cringely.com/2018/10/29/red-hat-takes-over-ibm/