The president title was a thing for people claiming the top spot without being the founder. It doesn't make sense to split CEO & President role between two people, but when the fable is told long enough the people who tell believe it themselves.
It doesn't have to be a strict two in the box situation. I am the President of my company and I brought on a CEO. I have neither the inclination nor the skillset to take on CEO-related tasks, but I head up corporate strategy and other tasks. We both have circles of unilateral action, and we have some areas where we overlap.
At the end of the day I hold a plurality (and currently a majority) of shares and I'm the sole founder, but unfit to be the CEO, at least in my opinion. It's another form of delegation.
> I can’t imagine it going well for an extended period of time.
Why is that?
I don't think there are many modern examples, but the idea of consensus based decision making isn't new, and doesn't appear to be intrinsically flawed.
Consider the origin of the word triumvirate. While the first one ended less than optimally for all concerned, we have a slightly less violent way of dealing with organisational promotion and succession now.
Personally I love the idea of having three equal heads of state, especially if their decision and voting behaviours are obliged to be published.
But I also like the idea of proper democracy. I'm Australian, and I don't think we have an actual democracy here - just a poor facsimile. I think in the USA it's even more distant.
