3 ms·
Even with co-founders, one of you is still the CEO. You need an executive function to set direction and unblock stupid territory squabbles. Someone whose decis
by yojo 4y ago
Even with co-founders, one of you is still the CEO.
You need an executive function to set direction and unblock stupid territory squabbles. Someone whose decisions are final. If you have two actual CEOs, you don’t have that.
- steveBK123 4y agoSomeone has to be 51+% either way..
- andsoitis 4y agoHBR has an interesting, recent article about why, in some cases, it might be better to have two CEOs: https://hbr.org/2022/07/is-it-time-to-consider-co-ceos https://hbr.org/2022/07/is-it-time-to-consider-co-ceos
- ghaff 4y agoGood read. The one time I've seen this situation has been as a board member of a small non-profit. This was ages ago but, as I recall, there were two well-qualified candidates for an editor-in-chief position. It seemed a case where if we appointed one, the other would walk. So we made them co-editors and it didn't go well. But I can imagine circumstances when it can work with the right people and circumstances.
- steveBK123 4y agoExactly.. probably instead of ending up with 1 happy person and the other walking, you ended up with 2 unhappy people and both eventually walking!