5 ms·
I don't understand how a company could operate for a few months without publicly acknowledging who is really the CEO. I hope they use a "fork the CEO role" but
by bfe 13y ago
I don't understand how a company could operate for a few months without publicly acknowledging who is really the CEO.
I hope they use a "fork the CEO role" button.
- phillmv 13y agoI'm curious: to whom does this matter? The title is a formality, their organization is notoriously flat and being co-founders they probably don't make major initiatives without the other's approval anyways. If anything they're probably just swapping "who sits in the spotlight for this year". And when you head a tech-oriented company, the difference between CTO and CEO is probably negligible anyways.
- bfe 13y agoI think Tom and Chris are doing a fantastic job running and growing github. I'm just curious how this idea of trading CEO roles without making it public for a while works in practice. I think it could potentially matter to their employees, along the lines Ben Horowitz discussed in his post, "Shared Command" [1] - different situation, but analogous potential muddling of the chain of command. Obviously some companies with both a CEO and a President can be amazingly successful [2], but tend to still be clear about who is ultimately in charge. It's not that I doubt Tom and Chris share a vision for github and clearly communicate and execute on that vision together; I just wonder when and how that model might hit its limits. 1. http://bhorowitz.com/2013/07/03/shared-command/ http://bhorowitz.com/2013/07/03/shared-command/ 2. http://www.spacex.com/about/leadership http://www.spacex.com/about/leadership
- unfunco 13y agoGitHub is not a company floating on some publicly-traded market yet. How they operate internally is of very little business to those on the outside. GitHub can operate anyway they like.