I was interested to read that SAP’s curious experiment with dual-CEOs is coming to an end in May next year, just over four years after it appointed Jim Hagemann Snabe and Bill McDermott (pictured) to take charge of the business .
According to co-founder and chairman, Hasso Plattner, the co-CEO model works "fabulously" but only in "certain situations and [with] certain people". He was at pains to stress that McDermott and Snabe were "special people who could work together without jealousy and without complexity".
Not many people would argue with that statement. The fact the co-CEO model has endured for four years (longer than quite a few sole CEOs last) is testament to the ability of McDermott and Snabe to work closely together. But the rarity of such an approach also demonstrates that it isn’t easy to find two individuals who can collaborate so well without jealousy.
Personally, while I find the co-CEO concept admirable, I’m amazed it managed to work at all. Not that I can’t see the benefits of having two heads rather than one in charge or the potential for the decisions they arrive at to be far more solid because they have been produced by two minds rather than one.
But it does go against the grain of so much business culture which places great store on the skills and vision of a single leader driving the company forward, executing decisions, developing strategies, delivering success. I would have thought that for many of the more macho elements of the business world (and that includes quite a few technology companies), a co-CEO strategy would be viewed as a recipe for disaster.
In their narrative of business and technology as a fast-moving, dynamic world where delay could lead to death, the idea a company could "slow down" the decision making process by passing it to two equal leaders would be viewed as anathema. What about the vision thing? With two bosses, wouldn’t that become a blurred vision? Wouldn’t the ruthless determination of a lone commander be somehow compromised and blunted by sharing the leadership between two people?
It’s not just business, of course. We’re conditioned to view leadership as a solitary occupation, whether it be in matters political, military or sporting. Of course there are other people involved, members of a cabinet, the high command, the members of the team, but in the end there’s one person in charge-one person with whom the buck stops.
Maybe there’s something to be said for a joint approach to high level decisions and actions but the difficulty is finding individuals who are able to work jointly without envy or rancour. It’s much easier to find individuals keen to make their own decisions, take their own actions and grab their own glory. But if companies, governments, the military and sporting teams were able to find individuals capable of doing everything a normal CEO or leader could do but also able to work together, who’s to say they might not have found people who offered something more than even the best individuals could?
Subscribers 0
Fans 0
Followers 0
Followers