Does it make sense for Twitter to have a two company CEO?
There may be times when it pays to take a flier and throw caution to the wind, although messing with the C suite is usually not one of them. I’ve served on ten public company boards and for the life of me, I could not fathom why a board would make this decision (to appoint a two company CEO to run Twitter). But what’s missing from my calculation is one of several possibilities: 1) Twitter (and by extension digital media) is different and leadership isn’t formulaic 2) This was Twitter’s best choice because instability would be rampant with a total outsider and no one inside is ready (but why wasn’t board more proactive on succession planning?) 3) it could be an interim move - appoint an insider as CEO in a year or two, making Dorsey more like an executive chairman (and so I ask, why didn’t board do that instead?) or 4) board lacked a quorum on all of the above, and they made a consciously convenient decision to avoid drawn swords around the conference table.