Among the more contentious issues surrounding the reform of corporate governance, particularly in the United States, is whether to split the roles of chairman and chief executive officer. To hear the critics tell it, separating them limits the CEO's power.1 Jack Creighton—who has served as a corporate president, as president and CEO, as chairman, as vice chairman, and as combined CEO and chairman of various companies—sees things differently. In his experience, maintaining two separate roles frees the CEO from the duties of chairman while providing a valuable adviser who can offer insights the CEO might not have. Combining the roles may be good for the ego, he argues, but doesn't necessarily make the person who holds them more effective.
Creighton's opinions have been forged by his experience in the top ranks of executive leadership, first at Weyerhaeuser, where he served as president and chief executive, and later at Unocal, where he was chairman. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he resigned from that position to become interim CEO and chairman of UAL's United Airlines, where, he says, "I would have loved to have somebody else be the chairman." Creighton never left Unocal's board and began serving...