联席CEO大多以失败告终，甲骨文这次会成为例外吗？

    即将卸任的埃里森把甲骨文公司的CEO权杖交给了两位下属。不过，这种联席CEO管理架构的确令人忧虑。并不是说所有的联席CEO体制都以噩梦告终，但至少许多采用这种体制的公司都招致彻头彻尾的失败。

    拉里•埃里森任命了两名接班人。

    从软件巨头甲骨文公司（Oracle）创始人拉里•埃里森平素的生活方式看，就知道他应该非常信奉“多多益善”这个准则。坐拥预计460亿美元个人资产的埃里森在硅谷建造了一座奢华的日式豪宅，在马里布也购买了令人艳羡的海景别墅，去年还赞助了美洲杯帆船赛，两年前还在夏威夷购买了一整座岛屿。

    上周四，埃里森的接班声明也表现出了另一种“多多益善”的意思。

    70岁的埃里森选择了两个人共同执掌甲骨文的CEO权杖，其中一个是2010年加盟甲骨文的前惠普公司(Hewlett-Packard)CEO马克•赫德，另一个是在甲骨文任首席财务官多年的萨弗拉•卡茨。

    甲骨文将成为目前第四家同时拥有两名CEO的财富500强企业，另外三家分别是美国金融集团（American Financial Group）、KKR和全食公司（Whole Foods）。另外，在过去25年里，只有21家公司曾经使用过联席CEO的组织架构。（当然，也有很多规模稍小的公司使用这种模式。）作为今年财富500强榜单上的第82位，甲骨文也将成为史上第22家由两人共同掌权的财富500强企业。

    联席CEO的例子之所以罕见，是有其原因的。

    斯坦福商学院（Stanford Graduate School of Business）组织行为学助理教授林德莱德•格里尔指出，联席CEO结构会“引起冲突，导致团队的负面表现”，并且导致两名CEO互相产生“敌对心态”。

    那么，这就是全部原因吗？

    格里尔的研究主要集中在团队权力冲突领域。他表示：“当你拥有了权力，你看待自己的角度就发生了变化。一旦你坐上这个位子，你对可能危及自身权力的威胁就会非常敏感。”其中一个潜在威胁，就是和你享有同样头衔和职权的另一名CEO。

    并不是说所有的联席CEO架构都以噩梦告终，但我们可以大胆地说，至少许多采用这种管理架构的公司都招致彻头彻尾的灾难。

    比如，MSO公司在2008年7月调整了管理架构，由温达•米勒德和罗宾•马利诺两人共同担任CEO，当时该公司董事长查尔斯•考普曼曾这样解释这一战略：“一加一等于三。”结果还不到一年，“一加一”战略就宣告失败了。2008年，MSO公司宣告亏损1570万美元，米勒德随后出走。在米勒德离职后，考普曼也坦承“两名CEO关系紧张”。

    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.