选择副手是领导者做的最重要的决定之一。做好这个选择，有助于树立施政方针，提高领导效率，以及在未来平稳地移交权力。
在美国总统大选中，竞选搭档的选取不仅会影响选民对总统候选人的看法，而且还能起到转移话题的作用。米特•罗姆尼提名鼓吹削减预算的保守派众议员保罗•瑞安作为副手之后发生的事请就是佐证。从消息公布之后权威人士们对罗姆尼的前途的种种预测中，我们可以看出副手对领导人命运的推动作用。
与美国政治体系不同，在商业领域并非每个领导者都备有后备，也非每个首席执行官都配备首席运营官。事实上，有些领导者更倾向于加强权力而非把它与副手分享。个别大公司的首席执行官身兼所有的高层职位---董事长，行政总裁，以及首席执行官---并把权威分散地赋予为数可观的区域总监和部门主管，或者干脆任命好几个副董事长。
他们不愿任命副手的原因或许是担心后者功高盖主。这在由创始人领导的公司里最为常见，因为他们往往不希望自己的团队里存在竞争者。我猜想这就是如今的花旗集团缔造者桑迪•威尔驱逐自己的得意门生杰米•戴蒙（现任JP 摩根大通首席执行官）的动机。
尽管如此，大部分领导者仍从搭档那里受益匪浅。一个称职的副手不仅是他的后备，还是他理念的宣传者，同时由于身处高位，副手还有足够的视野去承担重大的使命。如果乔布斯没有在身患重病之前任命蒂姆•库克为首席运营官，苹果公司还能有今天的繁荣吗？后乔布斯时代的苹果除了产品发布台上穿黑色高领毛衣的乔布斯换成了穿白色开领衬衫的库克之外，人们看不到什么变化。与此相反，某个不知名的软件创业者由于任命了一个首席技术官并把他作为潜在的副手而使他的公司失去了一次被硅谷大公司收购的机会，原因是对方认为这位技术官在公司壮大之后不能胜任后备的工作。
要正确地选择副手，你必须考虑以下三个因素：
1. 合作：你想释放什么样的信号？
显而易见，领导者应该选择一位志同道合的人作为副手。但一个领导者有很多方面要顾及，因此他的大政方针会显得模糊。副手的选择有助于在特定议题上阐明立场或者表达对其它议题的轻视。对罗姆尼而言，选择极右翼的瑞安有助于防止自己的形象滑向中间。在企业界，副手的选择能体现公司的经营重点。威讯公司首席执行官塞登伯格选择无线业务主管罗威尔•麦克亚当作为首席运营官和继承者就体现了公司对无线业务的重视，尽管履新后的麦克亚当同样要管辖固话业务。
2. 和而不同：你缺乏哪方面的能力？
尽管志同道合很重要，领导者们还需要考虑搭档的技能对自己是否起到补充作用。认识到自己的局限性就不会渴望克隆一个自己。脸书创始人和首席执行官马克•扎克伯格为他旗下蒸蒸日上的社交传媒帝国选择二号人物就体现了成熟的思考：他邀请那些具备不同技能的人进入高层与他一起管理。新任首席运营官谢丽尔•桑德博格带给脸书公司的除了经管常识以外还有与政府打交道的经验，这对一家高调扩张的公司尤为重要。
3. 继承：你能移交权力吗？
施乐前总裁安妮•莫西卡与现任总裁乌尔苏拉•伯恩斯之间的顺利交班被奉为典范。莫西卡不仅成功地将一个深陷丑闻泥潭的公司转型为新型文件管理公司，还注重公司的领导层建设，发掘了首席运营官伯恩斯的才能，并将他培养成搭档和继承人。
即便对最杰出的领袖而言，继承都是一个棘手的问题。南非首位民选总统纳尔逊•曼德拉被广泛认为是上个世纪最杰出的领导者。他使得一个陷入分裂的国家重建信心的能力让号称任何首席执行官都有缺点的哈佛大学MBA学者都望其项背。只有一个例外，他们指出他没有选择一个人足够强大的继承人。
除了总统选举，在这个推崇集体领导和团队精神的时代，强调选择一把手和副手的重要性似乎有点过时。但现实中每个领导者都需要选择搭档，而这个选择对他们的命运至关重要。
Picking a number two is among the most important decisions any leader makes. Getting it right shapes a leader's direction, effectiveness, and legacy.
In U.S. Presidential elections, the choice of a running mate can influence voter views of the candidate and shift the dialogue, as happened following Mitt Romney's naming of conservative budget-chopping congressman Paul Ryan as his vice presidential pick in the race for the White House. Pundits proclaimed immediately that Mr. Romney would succeed or fail based on this single choice, making the number two the prime mover in the fate of the number one.
Unlike the U.S. political system, the business world has no rules requiring that every leader have a backup, or that every corporate chief executive has a chief operating officer. Indeed, some leaders prefer to consolidate power rather than name a second-in-command. In some big companies, the CEO takes on all the top titles — chairman, president, and CEO — and scatters authority over an array of divisional and functional heads or appoints a trio of vice chairmen.
In fact, some CEOs don't want a strong number two, perhaps finding it threatening that they could be surpassed. That's often the case with founder-led companies in which the founder wants a team in which no one can emerge as a rival. I used to wonder whether that was why Sanford Weill, builder of the current Citigroup, eased out his protégé Jamie Dimon, now CEO of JPMorganChase.
Still, most leaders benefit from a running-the-company mate. A good number two can back them up, reinforce their message, and handle major responsibilities with the same broad view as the top person. Consider whether Apple would be flourishing today had the late Steve Jobs not appointed Tim Cook as COO well before his fatal illness. Apple continued to run with little discernable change, except that Cook's black open collar shirts substituted for Jobs's black turtleneck sweaters on the product announcement stage. In contrast, another software entrepreneur found that a poor choice of a chief technology officer, who was assumed by others to be the unannounced number two, prevented his small startup from being acquired by a Silicon Valley giant, because the potential acquirer found the CTO incapable of backing up the CEO as the company grew.
If you want to get the right number two, consider these three factors.
1. Alignment: Which signals do you want to amplify?
It's obvious that a top leader should choose a number two whose values and principles are aligned with hers in a general way. But a leader can also have multiple facets and leave some ambiguity about strategic direction. Adding a number two to the equation reinforces some possibilities while downplaying others. In Romney's case, selecting strongly conservative Ryan made it harder for Romney to show centrist tendencies. For companies, the choice of a number two underscores the business emphasis. Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg appointed Lowell McAdam, head of Verizon Wireless, as COO and successor. This amplified the company's message about the importance of wireless technologies, even though McAdam (who later became CEO) would also preside over landline operations.
2. Differentiation: What skills are you missing?
Although compatibility is important, leaders fare better when they complement themselves with a partner who brings a different skill set. Avoiding the temptation to clone yourself means accepting your limitations. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg's decision to add a second-in-command to his burgeoning social media empire showed a mature recognition that he couldn't be alone at the top and needed someone with different skills. Sheryl Sandberg, who became COO, brought management savvy and government relations experience, both essential to an expanding high-profile company.
3. Succession: Can you hand over power?
The smooth handoff at Xerox from former CEO Anne Mulcahy to current CEO Ursula Burns is often lauded as a model. Mulcahy's turnaround of a then-troubled company included more than a successful strategic shift to document management; she focused on leadership development and elevated COO Burns, who went from rising talent to partner and successor-in-waiting.
Even the greatest leaders sometimes fumble this factor. Nelson Mandela, South Africa's first democratically elected President, is widely considered one of the best leaders of the past century. Harvard MBA students, who have never found a CEO they couldn't improve, fall silent in awe of Mandela's prowess at restoring confidence in a divided nation. Except for one thing. They say he didn't do enough to ensure there would be a strong successor.
In this era of collaborative leadership and emphasis on the whole team, it seems old-fashioned to talk of numbers one and two, except for Presidential elections. But the reality is that every leader needs someone to run with. And the choice of that person can make or break you.
