????即將卸任的埃里森把甲骨文公司的CEO權杖交給了兩位下屬。不過，這種聯席CEO管理架構的確令人憂慮。并不是說所有的聯席CEO體制都以噩夢告終，但至少許多采用這種體制的公司都招致徹頭徹尾的失敗。

????拉里?埃里森任命了兩名接班人。

????從軟件巨頭甲骨文公司（Oracle）創始人拉里?埃里森平素的生活方式看，就知道他應該非常信奉“多多益善”這個準則。坐擁預計460億美元個人資產的埃里森在硅谷建造了一座奢華的日式豪宅，在馬里布也購買了令人艷羨的海景別墅，去年還贊助了美洲杯帆船賽，兩年前還在夏威夷購買了一整座島嶼。

????上周四，埃里森的接班聲明也表現出了另一種“多多益善”的意思。

????70歲的埃里森選擇了兩個人共同執掌甲骨文的CEO權杖，其中一個是2010年加盟甲骨文的前惠普公司(Hewlett-Packard)CEO馬克?赫德，另一個是在甲骨文任首席財務官多年的薩弗拉?卡茨。

????甲骨文將成為目前第四家同時擁有兩名CEO的財富500強企業，另外三家分別是美國金融集團（American Financial Group）、KKR和全食公司（Whole Foods）。另外，在過去25年里，只有21家公司曾經使用過聯席CEO的組織架構。（當然，也有很多規模稍小的公司使用這種模式。）作為今年財富500強榜單上的第82位，甲骨文也將成為史上第22家由兩人共同掌權的財富500強企業。

????聯席CEO的例子之所以罕見，是有其原因的。

????斯坦福商學院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）組織行為學助理教授林德萊德?格里爾指出，聯席CEO結構會“引起沖突，導致團隊的負面表現”，并且導致兩名CEO互相產生“敵對心態”。

????那么，這就是全部原因嗎？

????格里爾的研究主要集中在團隊權力沖突領域。他表示：“當你擁有了權力，你看待自己的角度就發生了變化。一旦你坐上這個位子，你對可能危及自身權力的威脅就會非常敏感。”其中一個潛在威脅，就是和你享有同樣頭銜和職權的另一名CEO。

????并不是說所有的聯席CEO架構都以噩夢告終，但我們可以大膽地說，至少許多采用這種管理架構的公司都招致徹頭徹尾的災難。

????比如，MSO公司在2008年7月調整了管理架構，由溫達?米勒德和羅賓?馬利諾兩人共同擔任CEO，當時該公司董事長查爾斯?考普曼曾這樣解釋這一戰略：“一加一等于三。”結果還不到一年，“一加一”戰略就宣告失敗了。2008年，MSO公司宣告虧損1570萬美元，米勒德隨后出走。在米勒德離職后，考普曼也坦承“兩名CEO關系緊張”。

????Leave it to Larry Ellison to appoint two successors.

????The founder of software giant Oracle is known for a lifestyle that seems to abide by the more-is-more mantra. With an estimated personal wealth of $46 billion, Ellison has built a sprawling Japanese-style home in Silicon Valley, purchased enviable property in Malibu, sponsored last year’s America’s Cup champion, and two years ago bought an entire Hawaiian island.

????His succession announcement on Thursday appears to be yet another case of excess.

????Ellison appointed not one but two people to fill his shoes. Co-presidents Mark Hurd, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who joined Oracle in 2010, and the company’s longtime chief financial officer Safra Catz got the nod to split the role held by the 70-year-old tech mastermind.

????Oracle will become the fourth Fortune 500 to have two CEOs, joining a group that currently includes American Financial Group, KKR, and Whole Foods. In the last 25 years, only 21 companies in the Fortune 500 have used the co-CEO structure. (There are, of course, companies with smaller revenue that have adopted the dual-CEO approach.) Oracle—No. 82 on this year’s list—will be the 22nd.

????The dual-leader setup is rare for a reason.

????It “causes conflict,” results in “negative performance by teams,” and gives the two leaders “hostile mindsets,” according to Lindred Greer, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business.

????Oh, is that all?

????“When you have power, it becomes how you see yourself. And once you have that position, you’re sensitive to threats that might jeopardize it,” says Greer, whose research focuses on team power struggles. One such potential threat? A co-CEO, with the same title and responsibilities.

????Not all of these arrangements have been total nightmares, but it’s safe to say that many of them have, at the very least, flirted with complete disaster.

????When Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia introduced a co-CEO structure in July 2008 with Wenda Millard and Robin Marino, its chairman Charles Koppelman explained the strategy by saying, “One plus one equals three.” Less than a year later, the “one-plus-one” strategy turned out to be a loser. Millard left after the company lost $15.7 million in 2008. “There was tension,” Koppelman said after Millard’s departure.