Summary of plausible bad reasons to appoint two "co-leaders" where one would suffice: - Both candidates had such strong claims on the #1 spot, and so much infl

Summary of plausible bad reasons to appoint two "co-leaders" where one would suffice: - Both candidates had such strong claims on the #1 spot, and so much influence, that the company was forced to promote both to avoid losing one of them. Hiring an outsider, like a sensible and earnest company would have done, would have alienated both rather than only one. Is Activision known as a fractious organization? - They really wanted Oneal, but they added Ybarra to avoid looking like they had undergone a feminist coup. Because they care about what their users think of them, and this is what they think of their users. - They really wanted Ybarra, but they added Oneal to give an impression of greater change, just because she is a woman. - Both candidates weren't considered really qualified as a sole "leader", but there was hope that they could handle the crisis together instead. Which implies personal conflicts, poor personnel quality (not necessarily Oneal and Ybarra, of course) or both. Even worse theories would be easy to think of, but since Blizzard executives can be expected to read HN discussions about them speculation about what they are doing would be pointlessly cruel.