When Oracle announced in September 2025 that it was elevating two executives to the role of co-CEOs under the watchful eye of Chairman Larry Ellison, the move was heralded as “visionary succession planning.”
Visionary might be one word for it. Another might be theater.
True succession planning isn’t about keeping a founder in the captain’s chair. It’s about trust, handing over control rather than just pretending to. Yet, in boardrooms across corporate America, that handoff has increasingly turned into a carefully staged performance. Two executives share what was meant to be a solo role, while the founder or chair quietly retains the real power.
The result is a new generation of leaders who carry the CEO title but not the authority that should come with it. Until boards learn that genuine succession means letting go, “leadership transition” will remain little more than bureaucratic theater.
The Boomerang Phenomenon
Boards loathe uncertainty. When disruption strikes, they reach for the familiar, often calling back former leaders who once steadied the ship. That’s how Howard Schultz found himself returning to Starbucks, or Bob Iger was summoned back to Disney. These “Baby Boomerang” CEOs are not just symbolic; they represent a board’s desire for comfort over risk.
The logic seems sound: better the known quantity than the unknown future. Experience offers predictability, continuity, and institutional memory. But what feels like stability often reveals itself as stagnation. In essence, it’s a declaration that the board would rather rewind the clock than trust what’s next.
When there’s no veteran to call back, boards often improvise. The fallback? A co-CEO model. Two leaders share power, supposedly to balance strategy and operations, innovation and stability. Yet, more often than not, the setup serves as a hedge, an insurance policy against accountability.
The Rise of the Co-CEO Model
This hedging strategy has quietly multiplied. Companies like Spotify and Comcast have recently experimented with shared leadership structures, citing collaboration and specialization. But beneath the surface lies a simpler truth: boards want to maintain control.
Despite the media buzz, co-CEOs remain rare. Only about 4% of Fortune 500 companies operate this way. And the track record isn’t encouraging.
Take Oracle’s 2025 decision to appoint Clay Magouyrk and Mike Sicilia as co-CEOs while Safra Catz transitioned to executive vice-chair. On paper, it looked progressive, one leader focused on cloud infrastructure, the other on AI solutions. In practice, it preserved the board’s oversight and created the illusion of renewal.
Salesforce tried a similar approach in 2018 and again in 2021. Each time, one co-CEO stepped down, and founder Marc Benioff resumed sole control by 2023. SAP experimented with the model too before reverting to a single CEO in 2020.
The arithmetic is clear. Dividing power dilutes ownership. It slows decision-making, spreads accountability thin, and erodes the clarity needed for bold strategic choices.
When everyone has a voice, no one truly leads.
The Generational Power Gap
The challenge runs deeper than structure, it’s generational. Most corporate boards remain dominated by Baby Boomers, while the new wave of CEOs comes from Gen X or Millennial ranks. That imbalance creates a silent power struggle: the older generation holds authority, while the younger inherits the title.
Research from Harvard Law’s Corporate Governance Forum shows how slowly boards are diversifying by age. The result? Younger CEOs often operate under heavy supervision disguised as mentorship. Instead of empowerment, they get “managed trust.”
In such environments, co-CEOs aren’t partners, they’re placeholders. They share the top job but lack the autonomy that defines leadership. Every move requires approval, every decision a consensus. It’s leadership in name, not in effect.
The Ripple Effects
When authority is conditional, dysfunction spreads quickly through the organization.
Blurred Accountability
With two leaders at the helm, who owns what? When decisions overlap, accountability disappears. Projects stall, deadlines drift, and employees learn to navigate politics instead of priorities.
Signals of Distrust
Splitting the CEO role sends an unspoken message throughout the company: “You have the title, but not the trust.” That kind of ambiguity breeds hesitation and risk-aversion, replacing ambition with administrative caution.
Stifled Innovation
Innovation thrives on decisiveness. But when every idea must clear multiple approvals, creativity slows to a crawl. A CEO who constantly needs permission becomes a Chief Risk Manager rather than a visionary. As Harvard Business Review notes, excessive oversight is one of the fastest ways to kill momentum.
Symbolic Succession
Two young co-CEOs make for an impressive press release, but if the board retains control, it’s symbolism dressed as progress. Titles change. Power doesn’t.
What Boards Should Do Instead
If corporate boards want to prepare for the next era of leadership, they must break old habits and rebuild trust where it matters most.
1. Institutionalize Continuous Succession Planning
Succession shouldn’t begin after a crisis. Boards should constantly identify and develop next-generation leaders, granting them real authority long before transition day. That means assigning clear ownership areas, measurable goals, and budgets that match responsibility, not just ceremonial titles.
2. Separate Oversight from Control
True governance isn’t about micromanagement. A capable CEO needs both autonomy and accountability. If the board still controls daily functions through “dual leadership,” the organization hasn’t transitioned – it’s treading water.
3. Refresh the Boardroom Mindset
Leadership renewal must start at the top. Boards need generational and cognitive diversity, inviting directors who understand modern markets, technology, and cultural shifts. Fresh perspectives turn oversight into partnership rather than policing.
As the World Economic Forum argues, trust and generational inclusion are the real engines of sustainable governance. Passing the title isn’t the same as passing the torch.
A Familiar Script in New Packaging
At Oracle, the co-CEO experiment might look daring on paper. It checks all the boxes, collaboration, innovation, forward thinking. Yet it might simply be another method of holding on. Two names on the door can’t disguise one hand still on the lever.
Until boards confront their own fear of irrelevance, co-CEOs will remain a kind of corporate theater. The stage changes, the cast rotates, but the script stays the same. The next generation of leaders doesn’t need co-pilots. They need boards brave enough to take their hands off the controls.
