From Verstappen to Pérez: The Second-in-Command Problem Every CEO Faces

Why Strong Number Twos Either Leave or Feel Stifled—And How to Structure COO/President Roles That Satisfy Ambitious Executives

Red Bull Racing faced a problem in December 2024 that every CEO knows intimately: their Number Two wasn't working out.

Sergio "Checo" Pérez, the Mexican driver from Guadalajara who had won five races for Red Bull and finished runner-up in the 2023 World Championship, was let go despite having a contract through 2026. His replacement, Liam Lawson, lasted just two races before Red Bull promoted Yuki Tsunoda instead. As of mid-2025, Tsunoda's best finish is ninth place while Max Verstappen—the team's undisputed star—has won multiple races.

The pattern reveals something F1 stewards and corporate boards both struggle to acknowledge: the problem might not be the second driver. It might be the impossibility of the role itself.

"It almost shows that Perez was doing a better job than we gave him credit for," admitted F1 steward Derek Warwick. "I think Red Bull needs to try and find a way of making that second car fast, because quite clearly driving the same car as Max does not work."

Replace "second car" with "COO role" and "driving the same car as Max" with "reporting to a dominant CEO," and you have the executive leadership challenge that defines—and often destroys—otherwise high-performing organizations.

The Verstappen Dynamic: When Greatness Creates Impossible Expectations

Max Verstappen is a generational talent. He won four consecutive World Championships (2021-2024). In 2023, he won 19 of 22 races. When you're that dominant, everyone in your orbit exists in your shadow—including the person sitting in the identical car right next to you.

Pérez's statistics tell the story of an excellent driver crushed by proximity to greatness. In 2023, he scored 285 points and finished second in the championship—an achievement that would be career-defining for most drivers. But Verstappen scored 575 points that same year. The 290-point gap wasn't about Pérez being bad; it was about Verstappen being transcendent.

By 2024, the pressure had become unsustainable. Despite a strong start that earned him a contract extension in June, Pérez managed just nine points across the final eight race weekends. He hadn't stood on a podium since April. The car was fast enough to win championships—Verstappen proved that—but Pérez couldn't extract that performance.

Was it the pressure of comparison? The setup optimized for Verstappen's driving style? The psychological weight of knowing you'll never be first? All of the above?

Corporate C-suites face identical dynamics. When a CEO is visionary, charismatic, and operationally brilliant—the trifecta that defines transformational leaders—their COO or President often becomes a role defined more by what it's not than what it is. Not the CEO. Not the final decision-maker. Not the face of the company. Not first.

For ambitious, capable executives, that's a suffocating position—no matter how prestigious the title.

The Seven Types of Number Two (And Why Most Fail)

Harvard Business Review's seminal research on COOs identified seven distinct types, each serving different organizational needs:

1. The Executor – Implements the CEO's strategy with operational excellence 2. The Change Agent – Leads transformation initiatives and turnarounds 3. The Mentor – Develops a young or inexperienced CEO 4. The Other Half – Complements the CEO's weaknesses by balancing strengths 5. The Partner – Co-leads with authority equal to the CEO 6. The Heir Apparent – Being groomed for CEO succession 7. The MVP – Retained to prevent defection to competitors

The problem? Most organizations hire for one type, then expect performance across all seven. It's like expecting Pérez to be both Verstappen's teammate and his replacement, while also mentoring him, complementing his style, and never threatening his position.

Red Bull essentially hired Pérez as a combination Executor (support Verstappen's championships), Other Half (balance Max's aggressive style), and Strategic Partner (help win the Constructor's Championship). When he couldn't simultaneously execute all three roles while matching Verstappen's pace, the partnership failed.

CEOs make the same mistake. They hire a COO to "handle operations" (Executor), then expect them to drive strategic initiatives (Change Agent), develop the leadership team (Mentor), and be ready to take over if needed (Heir Apparent). When the COO excels at two of four, the CEO questions the hire.

The Successor's Curse: Too Good, Too Threatening

Here's the paradox that kills most Number Two appointments: organizations want someone capable of becoming Number One, but the moment that person demonstrates that capability, they become threatening.

Pérez's strongest years at Red Bull were 2022-2023, when he won in Monaco, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan. He finished third overall in 2022 and second in 2023. These weren't fluky victories—they were races where he outperformed Verstappen.

And yet, whispers about his future began almost immediately after each success. Would he challenge Max for the team leadership role? Would Red Bull's famous "Number One driver" culture tolerate a genuine rivalry? The answer, history showed, was no.

Corporate boards create identical traps. A strong COO who successfully turns around operations or launches a new business line immediately triggers CEO insecurity. Board members start having quiet conversations: "Maybe we have our next CEO already?" The CEO, sensing the shift, begins subtly undermining the COO—taking back responsibilities, excluding them from key meetings, emphasizing their "supporting" role.

The ambitious COO faces two equally bad options:

1. Accept diminishment – Stay in a shrinking role, watch their influence erode, and eventually leave feeling unfulfilled
2. Push for more authority – Assert themselves, trigger conflict with the CEO, and get labeled "not a team player" before being pushed out.

Neither path leads to sustainable success. This is the structural problem Red Bull faced with Pérez and that companies face with strong COOs: the role itself contains contradictory requirements that can't be simultaneously satisfied.

The Mexico Factor: Why Pérez's Story Resonates Beyond F1

For Mexican professionals following Pérez's career, his Red Bull journey carries additional significance. He was the first Mexican driver to race for a top-tier team since the 1970s. His success opened doors for an entire generation, proving Mexican talent could compete at the highest level.

His departure stings not because he failed—his five victories and 29 podiums with Red Bull represent historic achievement—but because the narrative became about inadequacy rather than the impossibility of the role he was asked to fill.

Mexican executives navigating U.S. corporate structures face parallel dynamics. Hired to bring "Latin American market expertise" or "cultural bridge-building capability" to the C-suite, they're simultaneously expected to "not be too different" from the existing leadership team. Excel at the Latin America piece, and you're pigeonholed. Excel at general operations, and you're questioned why the company needed someone with your background.

The Pérez dilemma—prove you belong by matching the superstar, but don't outshine them—becomes amplified when layered with the additional complexity of being "the first" in a homogenous leadership culture.

Designing Sustainable Second-in-Command Roles: The F1 Engineer's Approach

Formula 1 teams that successfully manage two-driver dynamics don't try to create equality. They engineer complementary strengths within clear hierarchical structures.

Mercedes' success with Lewis Hamilton and Valtteri Bottas (2017-2021) provides the template. Bottas was explicitly the Number Two driver—no pretense otherwise. But his role was clearly defined: provide strategic support through race position, develop car setup data, score maximum points when Hamilton faced issues, and never cost the team points through internal competition.

Bottas knew the deal. He signed, knowing he'd never be Mercedes' top priority. But within that constraint, he had clear success metrics: maximize team points, beat all non-Mercedes drivers, develop Hamilton's car without complaint. He excelled for five years before moving to Alfa Romeo, where he could again compete for personal glory.

The corporate translation: design COO roles with explicit constraints and achievable success metrics that don't require outperforming the CEO.

Framework: The Four COO Archetypes That Actually Work

The Infrastructure Builder

• Primary Goal: Create operational systems the CEO doesn't want to build
• Success Metric: Company scales 3x without adding CEO workload
• Career Path: Becomes CEO at a similar-sized company needing systematization
• Compensation: Heavy equity in efficiency gains, not revenue growth

The Domain Specialist

• Primary Goal: Own one critical function (e.g., international expansion, product development, M&A integration)
• Success Metric: That domain becomes best-in-class while the CEO focuses elsewhere
• Career Path: Becomes CEO at a company where that domain is the core business
• Compensation: Tied to domain metrics, not overall company performance vs. the CEO

The Culture Architect

• Primary Goal: Build the organization's people systems, values, and ways of working
• Success Metric: Employee engagement, retention, and leadership pipeline strength
• Career Path: CHRO or CEO at a culture-driven organization
• Compensation: Tied to people metrics, explicitly separated from operational KPIs

The Sprint Lead

• Primary Goal: Execute a time-bound transformation (18-36 months)
• Success Metric: Specific project completion, then exit gracefully
• Career Path: Repeat similar transformations at other companies
• Compensation: Heavy upfront + milestone bonuses, minimal long-term equity

The Role Clarity Conversation: What CEOs Must Say (And COOs Must Hear)

The single biggest failure in CEO-COO relationships is ambiguity about hierarchy and decision rights. CEOs want COOs to "act like owners" but recoil when COOs make ownership-level decisions. COOs want "partnership" but discover they're actually implementers.

Red Bull's mistake wasn't hiring Pérez—it was never explicitly telling him that his job was to be Max Verstappen's championship insurance policy, not his rival. The contract extension in June 2024 created false hope that he was a co-equal rather than a support function.

When structuring second-in-command roles, CEOs must have the uncomfortable conversation:

"Here's what I need from you that I can't or won't do myself. Here's the authority you have to do it. Here's the decision-making I'm keeping. Here's how we'll know if you're succeeding—and those metrics are independent of whether I'm succeeding. You will not become CEO here unless I die or voluntarily step down, and I'm not planning either."

Equally important, ambitious COO candidates must ask themselves:

"Can I build a successful career in this CEO's shadow? If I execute perfectly, will I be satisfied with the recognition and compensation I'll receive, knowing it will never equal theirs? Am I comfortable being remembered as their teammate, not as the champion?"

If the answer is no—and for many talented executives, it should be no—then the right move is not to take the job, no matter how prestigious.

The Departure Decision: When to Support Your COO's Exit

Perhaps the most mature thing a CEO can do is recognize when their COO has outgrown the role and facilitate their departure to a CEO position elsewhere.

This rarely happens. Most CEOs view a COO's departure as a betrayal or as evidence of a hiring failure. But the healthiest CEO-COO relationships end with the COO leaving to run their own organization, maintaining a positive relationship with their former boss.

Pérez, in a January 2025 interview after his Red Bull departure, reflected: "It's incredible. It's hard to describe, but I feel different as a person. It's something I had never lived [before]. I'm perfectly happy. I'll come back to F1 if it's what's going to make me the happiest."

That's the sound of someone who was excellent at their job but exhausted by the impossible contradictions of the role. He's now linked to Cadillac's 2026 F1 entry—a new team where he wouldn't live in anyone's shadow.

Smart CEOs should proactively identify this moment before bitterness sets in. When your COO starts showing signs of needing their own command—restlessness with execution-only work, pushing for strategic authority they don't currently have, expressing interest in external CEO opportunities—the right move is often to help them land a role where they can be Number One.

The alternative—forcing them to stay until they're so frustrated they leave on bad terms—damages both parties and often the company.

Building for Two Leaders: The Structural Requirements

If you're determined to make a strong second-in-command role work long-term, you need structural changes, not just role clarity:

1. Separate Scorecards The COO's performance metrics must be truly independent from the CEO's. If the company misses revenue targets, but the COO delivered their operational milestones, they should still get a full bonus and recognition.
2. External Validation COOs need external visibility separate from the CEO. This means industry speaking slots, bylines, board seats at other companies, and recognition that isn't filtered through "supporting the CEO."
3. Genuine Authority Domains: Identify areas where the COO makes final decisions without CEO approval. Not "the CEO delegates day-to-day operations" but "the COO owns these P&Ls, these geographies, or these functions, and the CEO doesn't override."
4. Succession Acknowledgment: If the COO is not the successor, say so explicitly and help them build toward CEO roles elsewhere. If they are the successor, put it in writing with a timeline.
5. Compensation Equity COOs who deliver should earn within 60-70% of CEO compensation, not 30-40%. The gap should reflect different roles, not different value.

Red Bull will continue struggling with its second-driver role until it structurally changes expectations. They need either (a) a clear Number Two driver who's explicitly not competing with Verstappen, or (b) genuine co-equal status where both drivers have equal strategic support.

The same is true for corporate C-suites. Half-measures—hiring strong COOs then treating them as implementers, or claiming partnership while maintaining rigid hierarchy—create the conditions for failure regardless of the individual's talent.

The Path Forward: Honest Role Design Over False Partnership

The lesson from Pérez's Red Bull tenure isn't that second-in-command roles can't work. It's that they can't work under false pretenses.

Strong executives don't need to be CEOs to have fulfilling careers. But they do need roles with:

• Clear, achievable success metrics independent of the CEO's performance
• Genuine authority over defined domains
• External recognition for their contributions
• Compensation reflecting their value, not just their rank
• Honest conversations about advancement prospects

When these elements exist, the "Number Two problem" becomes the "Number Two solution"—a structure that allows CEOs to focus on what only they can do while empowering top talent to build significant parts of the organization.

When these elements don't exist, you get what Red Bull got: a revolving door of talented people who couldn't succeed in a role designed for failure.

The question for every CEO isn't whether to hire a strong second-in-command. It's whether you're willing to create the conditions for them to thrive without threatening your primacy. If the answer is no—and for many successful CEOs, it is—then you shouldn't hire a Pérez. You should hire someone content to be on the pit crew, not in the car.

Because in Formula 1 and in business, putting two championship-caliber drivers on the same team only works if both understand who owns the championship and who supports it.

The failure to make that distinction clear destroys careers and teams, and, in Red Bull's case, costs constructors' championships.

Key Takeaways

• The "Number Two problem" in F1 mirrors the COO/President challenge in corporate leadership—talented executives struggle in roles defined by what they're not rather than what they are
• Sergio Pérez's Red Bull exit demonstrates how proximity to transcendent talent (Verstappen/dominant CEOs) creates impossible expectations for strong performers.
• Harvard research identifies seven COO types, but most organizations hire for one while expecting performance across all seve.n
• Successful second-in-command roles require four elements: The Infrastructure Builder, Domain Specialist, Culture Architect, or Sprint Lead—each with explicit constraints and independent success metrics.
• CEOs must have uncomfortable conversations about hierarchy, decision rights, and succession—ambiguity kills otherwise viable partnerships.
• When COOs outgrow the role, smart CEOs facilitate their departure to CEO positions elsewhere rather than forcing relationships past their productive lifespan.
• Structural requirements for sustainable COO roles include separate scorecards, external validation opportunities, genuine authority domains, succession clarity, and compensation reflecting value, not just rank.

Ready to Build a Sustainable Second-in-Command Structure?

Whether you're building a C-suite for a nearshoring operation in Mexico, scaling a fintech startup, or navigating PE-backed transformation, the "Number Two problem" will define your organizational effectiveness. At Alder Koten, we specialize in architecting executive structures that work—identifying COOs, Presidents, and senior leaders who thrive in clearly defined roles rather than impossible positions.