"What's the Deal with Co-Presidents?" - 05/01/19 Edition
Stephen Says Column
Dear Stephen:
I have been interviewing with a furniture manufacturer that has co-presidents.
Yes, you read that correctly. This company has two presidents working together as the leadership team.
It may just be me, but I have never heard of nor encountered a company with this type of structure. It seems doubly unusual as the company is relatively small. Neither revenue numbers nor manufacturing logistics are overly complicated or large enough to require two people at the helm. My confusion was only further compounded in the interview. I asked several times in various ways but nobody seemed able to offer me a solid explanation as to what the two presidents did or what the purpose of having more than one president was.
It is one thing to have a co-pilot in the plane, but the co-pilot is always second in command to the main pilot, right? I am still interested in the job, but the more I consider it, the more concerned I become. Do you know what this arrangement could be about? Is this a new thing? Is it common? Something I should worry about it, ignore or embrace?
Signed,
Are two heads better than one?
Dear Two Heads,
The answer to your question is all three of those: worry, ignore and or (maybe) embrace.
Several different scenarios exist in which a company names “co-” anything. The main reason is if an organization has two founders who want to share executive decision making. Admittedly, it is an awkward title but this is an effective way of splitting power between members with equal ownership.
When the co-presidents are not founders, it is generally my experience this means the company has had a diffi-
cult time filling the position. Sometimes the company’s reputation is not strong enough to attract quality candidates. Sometimes the offered salary isn’t high enough. Often, even the geographical location of the job is entirely unappealing to qualified people. They just cannot get one good leader in the door.
When a power void happens, and the position cannot be filled, some companies tend to reach toward more than one internal senior executive. These are generally people who want the higher-level position but were not initially considered. These companies, however, find them as the only option on the table. The hiring company has no choice but to use some fancy footwork.
A company will typically choose two internal executives instead of one because they fear losing the executive who is passed over. It is a defensive measure to guard against future structural loss at the company. It is rarely a strategic decision designed to stimulate growth.
An easy illustration for me is to picture a family with two teenagers, let’s say 15 and 16, and a 7-year-old. If you leave just one of the two teenagers in charge, they will only end up resenting and then fighting each other. Tell both teenagers they are jointly in charge of the 7-year-old; however, the likelihood of their cooperation skyrockets.
If the company has an official board of directors and the board can’t decide on one effective leader, in my opinion, it is an incompetent board. Most employees look for one leader to set the di-rection of the company, and as I often say, work is not a democracy.
If it were me, I would stay away from a company with co-presidents. It is usually a temporary situation anyway. Unless the other one founders, one will always end up stabbing the other in the back. If you happen to pick the wrong president, it becomes your back next.
Best,
Stephen
You can send your workplace questions to Stephen at StephenSays@bellow.press.
Questions selected to be answered will appear in this column. Please use the Subject: Stephen Says for all emails. Stephen Viscusi is a bestselling author, television personality, and CEO of The Viscusi Group, global executive recruiters located in New York. Follow Stephen on Twitter @stephenviscusi. Like Stephen on Facebook and follow him on LinkedIn.
The Viscusi Group