????1998年到2000年，桑迪?威爾和約翰?里德曾在花旗集團（Citigroup）擔任聯席CEO，后來二人也是反目成仇。沃頓商學院（Wharton）管理學榮譽教授勞倫斯?賀比尼亞克表示，在決定公司發展方向的問題上，兩位CEO都是“有著強硬觀點的強勢領導人，因此‘兩駕馬車’的領導架構對他們的效果并不好。”

????在SAP公司，吉姆?斯內布和比爾?麥克德莫特也曾共同治理這家公司三年半的時間。在此期間，SAP斥140億美元巨資大舉進行收購，同期SAP的股價也增長了70%之外。但也正是在同一時期，SAP開始在云計算專家Salesforce.com的面前丟城失地。2013年斯內布辭去CEO職務，完全將權力交給麥克德莫特，他本人稱，自己需要“開始職業生涯的下一個階段，多陪家人。”

????Chipotle目前由兩位CEO史蒂夫?埃爾斯和蒙蒂?莫蘭共同執掌。Chipotle也是餐飲界近年來冉冉升起的少數明星企業之一。但它的領導層也引起了一些批評，尤其是兩位CEO的成本問題。今年五月，該公司77%的股東投票反對高管薪酬方案。

????廣告巨頭陽獅集團（Publicis）和宏盟集團（Omnicom）合并失敗，使雙方共建全球最大廣告公司的雄心化作泡影，其中一個重要的原因就是兩位CEO個性不合。

????不過，聯席CEO合作愉快的例子還是有一些的。

????KKR公司三位創始人中的兩人，亨利?克拉維斯和喬治?羅伯茨，是表兄弟，他們并肩執掌這家知名的企業收購公司已經幾十年了。

????在過去4年，約翰?麥基和沃特?羅伯兩人一直共同執掌全食公司。麥基于1980年參與創辦了全食公司，而羅伯于1991年加入，次年全食公司正式上市。羅伯于2010年被任命為全食的聯合CEO。從那時起，全食公司繼續保持了火箭般的擴張速度，股價也從每股13.73美元升至現在的39美元（去年最高時曾一度達到63.13美元）。

????在聯席CEO架構下，創業公司Birchbox（主要賣美容產品樣品）和眼鏡零售商Warby Parker公司分別成功融資7190萬美元和1.155億美元。

????在聯席CEO架構實行得比較成功的公司中，有一點是不約而同的——那就是兩名CEO中至少有一人是公司創始人。賀比尼亞克表示：“一般來說，如果涉及幾個人，那么他們必須有互相補充的技能或資本，必須愿意互相共事，認識到對方在某些領域的特長，并且在這些領域要向對方讓步。”與那些之前沒有一起共事過就“空降”到聯合CEO崗位上的人相比，企業創始人一般更能滿足這幾個條件。

????格里爾表示，根據她的研究顯示，兩位聯席CEO之間在各方面越平等，越有助于消彌他們的權力斗爭。這種平等大到地位和特權，小到薪水和辦公室的大小。

????卡茨和赫德的薪水待遇顯然是很不錯的——兩人的底薪都是95萬美元，2013年，兩人從公司領走的總薪酬都是4400萬美元左右。在賀比尼亞克看來，雖然兩位CEO都不是甲骨文的創始人，但他們在過去四年里一直維系著彼此的平衡，各自在相反但又相關的領域開拓。卡茨主要負責公司的內部財務、法務和生產事宜，而赫德主要負責銷售和服務等外部事宜。

????甲骨文此次安排的幕后推手正是埃里森本人，他決定“退而不休”，繼續擔任甲骨文首席技術官的角色。《財富》（Fortune）雜志的亞當?拉辛斯基認為，甲骨文的此次管理層洗牌很大程度上是作了一場秀。“上周四甲骨文傳來拉里?埃里森卸任CEO的重磅消息，然而最令人震驚的事實卻是，此次管理層的調整對甲骨文的影響其實非常小。”

????賀比尼亞克也認同這種觀點：“這是一出三個人演的戲。我們應該怎樣叫它？三部曲嗎？”

????甲骨文最好早點找出解決方案來。有兩個CEO就夠麻煩了，更惶論有三個。（財富中文網）

????譯者：樸成奎

????Sandy Weill and John Reed, co-CEOs at Citigroup from 1998 to 2000, clashed, says Lawrence Hrebiniak, professor emeritus of management at Wharton, since they were both “strong people with strong views” when it came to determining the company’s direction. “In that case, the duality didn’t really do them very good.”

????At SAP, Jim Snabe and Bill McDermott ran the company jointly for three-and-a-half years when it spent more than $14 billion on acquisitions and saw the company’s stock price increase by 70%. The company also lost ground to cloud specialist Salesforce.com during that same timeframe. Snabe ceded power to his counterpart in 2013, citing the need to “begin the next phase of my career, closer to my family.”

????Chipotle is run by two executives, Steve Ells and Monty Moran, and it’s been one of the few stars of the restaurant world of late. But its leadership—specifically the cost of operating under two CEOs—drew scrutiny in May when 77% of shareholders voted against its executive pay plan.

????Publicis and Omnicom pulled the plug on a merger that would have created the world’s largest advertising company in large part because of a clash of CEO egos.

????And then there are other times, when co-CEOs operate relatively seamlessly.

????Cousins Henry Kravis and George Roberts—two of the three founders of KKR—have overseen the best-known corporate buy-out company side-by-side for decades.

????For the last four years, CEOs John Mackey and Walter Robb have run Whole Foods. Mackey co-founded Whole Foods in 1980 and Robb joined in 1991, a year before the company went public. Robb was named co-CEO alongside Mackey in 2010. Since then, Whole Foods has continued its rapid-fire expansion and seen its stock price increase from $13.73 per share to $39 now, (though that’s down from a high of $63.13 last year.)

????Under co-CEOs, start-up Birchbox, which sells monthly subscriptions to beauty samples, and eyewear company Warby Parker have raised $71.9 million and $115.5 million, respectively.

????The common thread in these successful examples is that one—if not both—CEOs founded the company. “Generally, when multiple people are involved, they must have complementary skills or assets, they must be willing to work together, recognize the other’s expertise in areas, and give in to the other based on that expertise,” Hrebiniak says. People who built a business from the bottom up can tick more of those boxes than two individuals who are thrown into a shared leadership role without an existing side-by-side relationship.

????Based on her research, Greer says that power struggles can be defused when co-leaders are as equal as they can be in terms of status and privilege, down to their salary and office size.

????Catz and Hurd are certainly well compensated—both earned a base salary of $950,000 and racked in total compensation of about $44 million in 2013. And, to Hrebiniak’s point, though the two new CEOs don’t have a founders’ connection, they’ve managed to balance each other out for the past four years, carving out opposite but correlative niches. Catz focuses on internal finance, legal, and manufacturing matters, while Hurd handle outside affairs, like sales and service.

????The wild card in this arrangement is Ellison, who has opted to take on a role as chief technology officer at Oracle. Fortune’s Adam Lashinksyargues that Thursday’s management shuffle was largely for show. “The most shocking thing about Thursday’s bombshell announcement that Larry Ellison is stepping down as CEO of Oracle is how little will change,” he wrote.

????Hrebiniak agrees. “Three people are running the show. What do we call that? A trilogy?” he says.

????Oracle better figure this all out soon. Having two CEOs is tough. The only thing that might be worse is having three.