From what I've read, from former ycombinator founders, that if one person isn't in charge then people get stuck in decision paralysis. And that for instance if three people are equal partners, its always a game of alliances and two people ganging up against the other one.
You are conflating ownership and the role of a CEO. Technically the CEO does not have to hold equity at all (and this is in fact common in many older family owned companies).
Decision paralysis is more a function of not having a clear path forward or having founders without aligned goals than anything else and those are serious problems that need to be dealt with but they do not need to be dealt with on an equity level.
It's much more to do with knowing which role fits you best.
Keep in mind that the CEO functions at the pleasure of the board if you have one and the stockholders if you do not and unless you plan on doing stuff that will go directly against the interest of other shareholders having control is rarely if ever important.
Far more important than the CEO having a controlling percentage of the equity is that the founders have a controlling percentage (and if possible, a supermajority depending on your articles of incorporation and shareholder agreements and whether or not you have more than one class of stock).
Well, if that CEO puts up 51% of the capital that might happen. But otherwise the better formula is to be equals as co-founders.