In September 2025, Oracle promoted its co-CEOs under the watchful eye of Chairman Larry Ellison. The press dutifully praised this “visionary succession planning.”
Visionary. That’s one word for it. Another might be: theater.
Because real succession planning doesn’t require the founder to stay on as chairman. Real succession planning means letting go of the wheel, not just loosening your grip while everyone pretends not to notice your white knuckles.
Boardrooms across corporate America continue to discover this progression. Two leaders share what was meant to be a solo act. They call it progressive, but dance around the truth: the title in hand with real authority is left on the founder’s desk.
The costliest consequence of all is the next-gen leaders who are CEOs in name only. Until boards stop mistaking dual titles for trust, the word “succession” will remain bureaucratic theater.
The Boomerang Phenomenon
Boards despise uncertainty. When disruption hits, they reach for familiar faces. Hence, Howard Schultz‘s return to Starbucks and Bob Iger‘s emergency summons to Disney. These Baby BOOMERang CEOs are perhaps brought back to calm the waters.
The appeal is obvious. Boards crave predictability, just as politicians crave polls. Known quantities deliver known results. Or so the thinking goes. Plus, there is the comfort of institutional memory and legacy preservation. Such a reflex is quite the opposite of forward-looking leadership. It announces, loud and clear,
“We would rather rewind the clock than trust what comes next”.
What if there is no dependable boomer to call back? The board improvises a Plan B. They adopt the co-CEO model. Then they hope that together the two won’t tangle. But make no mistake, a co-CEO setup is mostly a hedge.
The Rise of the Co-CEO Model
This hedging strategy is now becoming a visible pattern. It continues to multiply, as seen in recent announcements from Spotify and Comcast. Not because two heads are better than one, but because boards want to maintain control. Although the metrics should prompt any board to reconsider.
Public companies with co-CEOs remain a tiny fraction. They are about 4% of the Fortune 500.
Take Oracle’s recent move as an example. This September, the company promoted Clay Magouyrk and Mike Sicilia as co-CEOs. The CEO, Safra Catz, sidestepped the role of executive vice-chairman. A title that preserves board oversight but also creates the illusion of change.
The reasoning offered was convincing, though. One executive would lead cloud infrastructure. The other would oversee industry-specific AI applications. But only under board supervision.
The pattern is not new. Salesforce appointed co-CEOs in 2018 and 2021. Only for one to step down. The founder Marc Benioff resumed full control in 2023. SAP also experimented before reverting to a sole CEO in 2020.
The board arithmetic is clear. Distribute power to dilute ownership. Keep institutional memory close enough to intervene. What follows is equally clear: accountability evaporates across multiple leaders. Decision velocity collapses under dual approvals. Bold moves die in compromise.
That inspiring vision of next-gen leadership? It has now been converted into a comfort blanket for boards. They would rather hedge than hand over the keys.
The Generational Power Gap
The fault lines run deeper. Boards are still overwhelmingly populated by Baby Boomers. The incoming CEOs are mostly Gen X or Millennials. A mismatch arises in which power lies with the older cohort, yet the titles slide to the younger leaders.
Younger leaders inherit the stage but not the direction. Boards trust legacy experience over emerging talent. Mentorship is rebranded as oversight, and the C-suite becomes the new middle management in such a dynamic.
Co-CEOs mean each is less accountable and more constrained. All the while, the board holds the purse strings, rationalizing this as collaborative leadership.
The incoming executive is not so much a CEO as a CEO-in-waiting. Yes, the title is awarded, but authority is retained elsewhere.
The Consequences
When leadership is conditional, consequences also ripple through the organization.
Blurred Accountability
Who owns what when two people share the top job? The lack of singular clarity plagues co-CEO models. Decisions are delayed and responsibility is fragmented.
Signals Distrust
When a board splits the job rather than handing over the reins, the message trickles down,
“You are allowed the title but not the full seat at the table”.
This stifles audacity and breeds caution. The culture shifts toward governance and control.
Stifled Innovation
When power resides with the boards, every initiative is vetted and approved before it goes live. That might reduce mistakes. But it also stalls momentum. A CEO who must seek permission at every turn is, at best, a Chief Risk-Manager.
Symbolic Succession
Two young co-CEOs may paint a succession story. But if the board retains center stage, it’s only a photo op, not a transformation. The job title and office may change, yet the power dynamic remains static.
What Boards Should Do Instead?
Boards must do better. They need to execute on three decisive shifts.
- Implement Continuous Succession Clarity
Don’t wait until a crisis. Identify, develop, and empower next-gen leaders early. Give them chunks of control rather than ceremonial titles. The goal is never just naming the CEO; it’s about empowering them. It’s conforming their abilities to run things from day one. Designate clear ownership as well as timelines and performance milestones. - Separate Control from Oversight
Give the incoming CEO more than a title. Give them a budget and direct board access. If the board retains functional control through dual leadership, then the transition is merely a formality. - Refresh Board Demographic and Mindset
Introduce fresh perspectives amongst the board.
If the board itself remains stuck in a 1980s mindset, the leadership structure will reflect that. Trust is generational. A peer-to-peer dynamic among the board members and next-gen leaders works better.
Passing the title is not the same as passing the torch. Boards must not mistake one for the other. Or they will continue to produce CEOs who appear to be making progress but ultimately serve as placeholders.
Ending Remarks
Back at Oracle, the move to co-CEOs looked daring. It ticked every progressive box on paper. Yet it may just be a new way to hold on. Two names on the letterhead can’t disguise one hand still on the lever.
Until boards confront their own fear of irrelevance, the co-CEO will stand as corporate theatre. Modern staging with the same old script. The next generation of leaders doesn’t need co-pilots. They need boards willing to take their hands off the yoke.
Written by Shawn Cole.
Add CEOWORLD magazine as your preferred news source on Google News
Follow CEOWORLD magazine on: Google News, LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook.License and Republishing: The views in this article are the author’s own and do not represent CEOWORLD magazine. No part of this material may be copied, shared, or published without the magazine’s prior written permission. For media queries, please contact: info@ceoworld.biz. © CEOWORLD magazine LTD
