For more than a century, corporations have been built around the idea of a singular executive authority at the top. One company, one CEO. Yet a growing number of firms, from Netflix to Oracle to Spotify and Comcast, are opting for shared executive power – not as a temporary fix, but a deliberate governance design.

Since our pioneering study on the topic, we’ve been tracking the evolution of shared executive power. Our research has identified a growing number of co-CEOs in a range of industries, from  entertainment to financial, tech, and food and beverage.

Not all executive partnerships have been a success. The likes of Unilever, Airbus, Deutsche Bank and SAP are all examples where co-leadership has led companies down the wrong path. But then not all solo CEO-led firms are successful either. It could be argued that there are proportionally more firms with one boss that have fallen by the wayside.

Three myths of leadership

There remains a strong reluctance to experiment with co-leadership, of which joint CEOs are just one possibility. A recent Financial Times article stated that fewer than 100 of the 2,200 companies in the S&P Global 1200 and Russell 1000 indices were run by co-CEOs in the 25 years between 1996 and 2020. We blame this reluctance on the persistence of three myths.

The first is the myth of the “individual leader”, or as consultant and educator Peter Drucker put it: “90% of the trouble with the CEO job is rooted in the superstition of the one-man chief”. This has endured through the ages, not just in business but also politics, sports and beyond. Yet this obsession with this leadership model fails to appreciate that a single individual leading your organisation restricts your firm to a single leadership style.

Then there is the myth of “diminished power”: the concern that dividing authority at the top of the company means no one has any real authority. But power is not a fixed quantity. Sharing it with another executive does not diminish the influence of either of them.

Last, there is the myth of “blurred accountability": the fear that having two people in charge means no one ends up taking responsibility. This can easily be avoided, and proper accountability maintained, through careful selection of co-CEOs and transparent rules that detail their joint responsibility.

A complex job

The fundamental rationale for co-leadership is the very complexity involved in top executive work. The sheer diversity of issues facing heads of organisations today could see them struggling to cope with the many contradictory tasks expected of them – no matter how experienced, energetic and competent they may be. On the one hand, a CEO is required to lead a firm’s drive towards evolution and innovation, yet they are also responsible for overseeing the minutiae of production, supply chains and budgets. In some industries, situations and stages of growth, these dualities are simply too broad for one person to manage. Dual leadership, where the individual CEOs possess different skillsets or experiences, could well ensure more informed decision-making.

Amid today’s the complexity and uncertainty, should the question not be whether authority can be shared, but whether a single CEO can ever really cope? Joint leadership is not a universal or easy executive design, but it can be an effective solution for a company under the right circumstances.

When to share the reins

After examining dozens of real-life examples of shared executive power, we suggest joint leadership is more likely to succeed when the following features are in place.

1.        Complementarity and compatibility: 
The right mix of task separation and emotional compatibility is vital. In the task domain, it is useful for co-leaders to have different backgrounds, expertise and contacts. In the emotional domain, their styles of management should align. Indeed when Gustav Söderström and Alex Norström were appointed co-CEOs of Spotify in January 2026, their joint statement highlighted the value of their differences and compatibility: “We’ve worked together a very long time… While we bring different experiences and perspectives to the CEO role, we both have a strong bias to action.”

2.        Clear responsibilities: 
There needs to be a clear delineation of which tasks are to be overseen separately and what should be discharged together. This split must be agreed at the start of the partnership. Discussing this anew for every decision will only lead to operational paralysis. Such inertia was evident at Blackberry, where co-CEOs Mike Lazaridis’s and Jim Balsillie’s failure to respond swiftly to the iPhone-led touchscreen revolution, led to dramatic losses in market share. Governance and evaluation mechanisms need to be aligned with this shared accountability, and they must cover issues such as performance, compensation and succession to mitigate concerns due to competition. 

3.        Transparency and alignment:
Being transparent about the way the pair operates ensures internal and external stakeholders have clear expectations. Consequently, messaging by the CEOs must align, such that each is seen as interchangeable for the other, and able to speak for the other. For example, when Whole Foods was found overcharging customers, co-CEOs John Mackey and Walter Robb put on a united front on camera when owning up to the firm’s missteps.

4.        Keep arguments private:
It is essential that joint leaders deal with any conflicts and disagreements in private. No one ever saw Sony’s legendary co-founders and co-CEOs Akio Morita and Masaru Ibuka argue, despite them sharing the helm for over 40 years. As John Nathan wrote in Sony: The Private Life, a chronicle of the company’s rise: “No one in or outside Sony ever heard either of them criticize the other.”

5.     Clear transition plans:
For some, it makes sense for the lengths of contract to be the same. When Rome was led by two consuls, they served equal terms to avoid power struggles. While this does add clarity, some firms can benefit from uneven contract lengths to ensure continuity, so that when one leader steps down, the other stays to help with the transition to a new CEO. Netflix, for instance, adopted a co-CEO structure to smooth the transition as its founder Reed Hastings stepped down, appointing Ted Sarandos and then Greg Peters to jointly helm the global entertainment giant. A a clear plan is vital as ambiguity over succession can destabilise even the strongest partnerships.

A problem shared

These five points alone cannot guarantee success, but without such frameworks and transparency, co-leadership can be a damaging and debilitating undertaking. In a more challenging business environment, with increasing economic, geopolitical and technological uncertainty, the ability to draw on combined expertise and experience can give firms the agility needed to negotiate this new landscape.

Finally, there is a more sentimental argument for sharing executive power: The CEO’s role is becoming an ever more demanding and perilous occupation. The ability to share those challenges and pitfalls allows opportunities for shared experiences and learning, which can alleviate loneliness at the top. The value of such companionship cannot be overlooked. Co-founder and co-leader of Singapore-based software company StaffAny Janson Seah affirms, “co-leadership provides a 'peer coach' and a safe space to iterate rapidly; and that is often the difference between breaking down and breaking through."