Interested in more careers-related content? Check out our new weekly Work Life newsletter. Sent every Monday afternoon.
I’ve always been intrigued by the notion of co-leaders. It seems we place too much faith in having one person at the top, a denial of collective power. For some roles in some organizations at certain times, two people sharing one position makes sense, be it the CEO post or elsewhere in the organization. Yet it’s rarely considered.
Leadership consultant Anand Joshi, who over the past 20 years has counselled many co-CEOs, says success has been mixed with failures often blamed on a bad fit or lack of preparation. “A suitable fit and preparation do matter, but boards and leaders often act as though the challenge is mostly in setting up the arrangement,” he writes in Harvard Business Review. “We’ve found that initial preparation is not enough – co-leaders need to keep working on this unusual structure over time.”
When the process works well, he argues the partner-leaders can create extraordinary value for the organization. To succeed, however, they must overcome some common mistakes:
- Organizations too often appoint co-heads for the wrong reasons, choosing the approach to solve a talent problem, not to drive sustained results. One common scenario at levels below the C-suite is to name dual leaders as part of succession planning, offering a chance to test multiple people in a role. Also common is to pair a star producer who’s thinking of leaving and not so interested in management with a co-leader who is a managerial ace. Organizations also can opt for co-leaders, consciously or unconsciously, to hedge risks by not being dependent on one person for the role. “There can be a strategic benefit in this, but it’s also more focused on the mentality that the setup is what matters, not the process of co-heads actually working together,” he writes.
- Co-leaders don’t continue building credibility over time: Authority and the rationale for co-leadership must be established initially, obviously, but that must continue. “In the six to 12 months after the joint appointment, each co-leader needs to actively establish credibility in the new role, internally and externally – and co-ordinate with the other co-head. In practice, that means continuing to articulate what each co-leader will do and how they will do it, recognizing that this will evolve as the business changes and unexpected leadership needs arise,” he says. The co-heads need not only to understand their positions, but also to explain the arrangement and back each other up. They have to be alert to the fact some subordinates will read into how the leadership partners act, looking at small things such as who speaks first or who gets more time at important company events to discern (or imagine) power discrepancies.
- They fail to identify synergies: The leaders, logically, each pick a few topics or challenges as their area of responsibility, usually called a “divide and conquer” strategy. That has always been viewed as the wellspring in co-leadership, two people, using their different strengths, in harmony. But Mr. Joshi says “instead of focusing on what they want, or where they have experience, the co-leaders should address the opportunities and threats for each area and lay out responsibilities according to the potential value to be created. Some areas indeed can be safely divided up, but others will benefit from working collaboratively, to achieve a ‘1+1=3′ result.”
- They don’t create sufficient creative tension: Too often, the co-leaders are so concerned with avoiding disagreements that each shies away from sensitive issues. They retreat not just to their own areas but – even more perilously – to their own opinions about the business. Avoiding conflict drives them apart in the messages they are sending to subordinates.
Mr. Joshi also stresses the importance of contributing in a comparable manner, to avoid resentments; staying current with each other at least every other day, so that communication gaps don’t arise; and making the partnership arrangement a growth experience for each person. Also important is regularly holding explicit conversations on how they are getting the work done and how to improve as a duo. “Fearful of stirring up trouble and disparaging what they see as ‘couples therapy,’ they tend to keep conversations short and focused on what’s happening – not how they’re working together,” he writes. That just makes the other mistakes more likely.
David Lancefield, a strategy coach, notes in Harvard Business Review that recent research suggests public companies led by co-CEOs outperformed the relevant stock market index, although the sample used was small, 87 companies in 25 years. He sees value in the approach within business units, divisions and projects, especially after acquisitions, when there’s a perceived need for representation of both groups. But a big danger is unhealthy game playing in the pursuit of dominance and positioning for the next role.
“You don’t have to become a political animal who spends their days looking to outmanoeuvre their co-leader,” he advises those who take on the challenge, because bosses, peers and subordinates spot this egregious behaviour and disapprove. “Instead, perform this role with integrity, canniness and positivity, recognizing that it will feel uncomfortable at times.”
Co-leadership is rarely raised as an option in a world where we exalt singular, heroic leaders. But it offers benefits as the pressure on certain roles becomes so intense these days it’s hard for one person to avoid sinking. Just do it for the right reason, alert to the challenges.
Cannonballs
- Business executive Julie Zhuo says to change a culture you must cross three gates. The first is knowing what existing belief you want to change and where it comes from. The second is to know what alternative belief you would like to stand for. The third gate is to start telling the new, different story over and over again.
- A U.S. study of federal workplaces found LGBT employees encounter significantly more inequality at work than their colleagues. They reported worse treatment, lower perceived workplace fairness and lower workplace satisfaction. Federal employees are protected by anti-discrimination policies, so their workplaces could be considered the best-case scenario for organizational inclusivity.
- McKinsey & Co. senior partner Lareina Yee says for every dollar companies invest in technology they need to invest three to five dollars in human beings, because human beings are very expensive and difficult to change.
Harvey Schachter is a Kingston-based writer specializing in management issues. He, along with Sheelagh Whittaker, former CEO of both EDS Canada and Cancom, are the authors of When Harvey Didn’t Meet Sheelagh: Emails on Leadership.