The advantages of a co-CEO for decision-making in increasingly uncertain times

Are two CEOs better than one? Here are the pros and cons to consider

The following article comes from Entrepreneur, a renowned American publication launched in 1977 specializing in business, small business management, franchising, and entrepreneurship. It offers practical advice on marketing, finance, and technology, as well as success stories.

The article is by Ash Wendt, president and co-founder of Cowen Partners.

 

 

 

 

With CEO tenures decreasing and industry demands evolving, the co-CEO model is emerging as an attractive leadership structure; however, it’s important to evaluate its advantages and disadvantages.

 

Key takeaways: The co-CEO model offers benefits such as improved decision-making and greater leadership stability, but it also presents challenges such as potential conflicts and communication problems.

 

Success in a co-CEO structure depends on clearly defining roles and responsibilities to avoid duplication and ensure smooth operations.

 

Adapt the co-CEO model to the specific demands of your industry to maximize its effectiveness and support your strategic objectives.

 

 

The executive search industry is undergoing an unprecedented transformation

as organizations adapt to constantly evolving needs. One of the most notable changes is the growing interest in shared leadership models, such as co-CEO. Especially given the decreasing average CEO tenure, these models offer several advantages, including improved decision-making through diverse perspectives, a more equitable distribution of workload to prevent burnout, and greater leadership stability.

 

Now more than ever, it is crucial to evaluate the pros and cons of shared leadership to build resilient management teams in an industry of uncertainty.

 

Related: Advantages and Disadvantages of the Co-CEO Model

 

What motivates the transition from a single CEO to a co-CEO model?

 

Companies adopt co-CEO models for a variety of reasons. It can improve decision-making by incorporating diverse perspectives and distributing the workload, preventing burnout and allowing each CEO to focus effectively on specific areas of the business. It can also help simultaneously drive multiple growth initiatives and increase investor confidence by demonstrating proactive leadership.

 

For example, Paramount recently adopted a trio of co-CEOs, reflecting a growing trend in the business world. This shift from the traditional single-leadership model stems from a desire for diverse perspectives and a need to distribute leadership responsibilities.

 

What are the main benefits of having co-CEOs?

 

In industries with high CEO turnover, co-CEOs can provide greater leadership stability by sharing responsibilities, reducing burnout, and ensuring consistent leadership during transitions. This model can improve organizational performance by leveraging diverse skills and fostering innovation. For example, Salesforce’s co-CEOs Marc Benioff and Keith Block jointly managed operations and innovation, while SAP’s Christian Klein and Jennifer Morgan boosted performance by dividing their areas of focus.

 

Related: Netflix is ​​one of the few companies with two CEOs. What happens when they disagree?

 

 

 

5 Steps to Overcoming the Challenges of Co-CEO Agreements

Despite its benefits, the co-CEO model also presents challenges, such as the risk of conflicting strategies, overlapping roles, and potential communication problems. To mitigate these risks, it is essential to clearly define roles and responsibilities and establish robust communication protocols. Regular alignment meetings can also help maintain cohesion and prevent conflicts.

 

For a successful transition to the co-CEO model, start by following the five steps outlined below:

 

1. Clearly Define Roles and Responsibilities

 

Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each co-CEO to avoid duplication and ensure smooth operations. This involves defining specific areas of responsibility for each leader, ensuring that each co-CEO has a distinct focus. For example, one co-CEO might concentrate on internal operations and human resources, while the other focuses on external relations and business development. By establishing clear boundaries, organizations can prevent confusion and conflict, facilitating a more efficient leadership structure.

 

2. Leverage Complementary Skills

 

Utilize the diverse skills of each co-CEO to drive innovation and improve decision-making processes. For example, if one co-CEO has a strong background in technology and innovation, while the other excels in finance and strategic planning, combining these strengths can lead to more comprehensive and innovative solutions to business challenges. Encouraging collaboration between co-CEOs on important decisions can also result in more complete and effective outcomes.

 

3. Focus on Employer Branding

 

Communicate a compelling value proposition to attract top executive talent, emphasizing the company’s culture, mission, and growth opportunities. This involves highlighting the tangible benefits of working at the company and promoting its values, mission, and vision. By demonstrating a commitment to innovation, diversity, and employee well-being, organizations can position themselves as desirable workplaces for senior executives.

 

4. Use relevant data and analytics

 

Incorporate data-driven insights to tailor recruitment strategies and effectively target the right candidates. This could involve analyzing past hiring successes, monitoring industry trends, and using predictive analytics to forecast future hiring needs. By basing recruitment strategies on solid data, organizations can improve the accuracy and effectiveness of their talent acquisition efforts.

 

 

5. Tailor the model to your industry

 

Every industry has different requirements and challenges, so it’s essential to customize the co-leadership model to fit each specific context. For example, in the fast-paced technology sector, agile decision-making and innovation might be top priorities, while in the financial sector, regulatory compliance and customer focus might be more important. By understanding the specific demands of each industry, organizations can better structure their co-CEO model to support their strategic objectives.

 

Related: Your definition of leadership is outdated: Here’s how to be a better leader in today’s workplace.

 

 

Does the co-CEO model really work?

 

The success of a co-CEO model depends largely on the compatibility and collaboration among the individuals involved. Clearly defined roles, mutual respect, and a shared strategic vision are essential components. Success stories from companies like Salesforce and SAP demonstrate that, with the right framework, the co-CEO model can be effective, providing stability and leveraging diverse skills to drive innovation.

 

As the business landscape continues to evolve, shared leadership models could represent the future of executive management, offering a resilient and dynamic approach to navigating the complexities of today’s business world.

 

Organizations considering this model should carefully weigh the advantages and disadvantages of shared leadership, ensuring they have the necessary structures and protocols in place to maximize its benefits and mitigate its risks. In this way, they can build effective and resilient leadership teams, well-prepared to meet the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities of today’s dynamic business world.

 

Ash Wendt • Chairman and Co-founder of Cowen Partners

Contributor to Entrepreneur Leadership Network®

Ash Wendt, Chairman and Co-founder of Cowen Partners, has driven the firm’s national success through

 

 

Is One CEO Enough? The Rise of the Co-CEO Model

The following contribution comes from the Russell Reynolds website, which describes itself as follows: All organizations—from startups to global corporations, from charities to multilateral agencies—aspire to exceptional leadership. We support them in building that leadership: recruiting the right talent, assessing their leaders, and developing the skills for the future.

Together, we are improving the way the world is led.

The article is authored by Laura Mantoura, a member of the Board and CEO Advisory team at Russell Reynolds Associates. She is based in New York. Emma Combe, who leads the Board Advisory team at Russell Reynolds Associates in the UK and hosts Leadership Lounge, is based in London.

 

 

 

 

Industry Trends

Succession

CEO Advisory Board

Board of Directors

CEO Succession

Executive Summary

 

As organizational complexity increases, we explain why some boards of directors are exploring co-CEO leadership structures.

 

 

The Challenge of There Can Be More Than One Person in Charge

Several prominent companies have recently challenged one of the most deeply ingrained assumptions in the business world: that there can only be one person in charge.

 

Around the globe, we are seeing an increase in co-CEO structures, where two leaders share the chief executive role and responsibilities. While the total number of co-CEO appointments remains small, the concentration and timing of these announcements point to a growing willingness among boards to question whether two CEOs might be better than one.

 

Why Are Some Organizations Rethinking the Single CEO Model?

The role of the CEO has always been singular: one person, a single decision-maker. However, over time, fulfilling this role alone has become exponentially more difficult. CEOs are now expected to lead AI transformation agendas, manage rising stakeholder expectations, and anticipate geopolitical disruption—all while defending margins. Indeed, it’s a superhuman job description.

 

Our Global Leadership Monitor for the second half of 2025 reflects the increasing complexity of the role, revealing a 10% decline in CEOs’ readiness to manage technological change between the first and second halves of 2025. Only 40% say they are prepared to address the disruption brought about by AI. Our data also reveals that CEOs are increasingly less prepared to manage talent availability, which has fallen from 48% to 37% in the last six months.

 

As another potential consequence of these increasing demands, our research found that CEO tenure fell to a record low of 7.2 years between the first and third quarters of 2025. In this context, adopting co-leadership could be a way to distribute complexity, share responsibility, and prevent burnout at the senior management level.

 

Arguments for Co-Leadership

Currently, more and more boards of directors appear to be using the co-CEO model to align leadership structure with strategy, scale, and the pace of change. And the data suggests it can be incredibly effective. A Harvard Business Review analysis of 87 publicly traded companies led by co-CEOs revealed that these companies generated an average annual return for shareholders of 9.5%, compared to 6.9% for their benchmark indices. Nearly 60% outperformed their peers, and the average tenure, at around five years, matched that of CEOs serving alone.

 

A co-executive leadership structure also allows organizations to combine breadth and depth: one leader can provide global, strategic, and stakeholder-centric guidance, while the other offers deep technical, operational, or product expertise. Together, they can create a more well-rounded leadership profile.

 

In this way, the model not only divides responsibility but also mitigates continuity risks, providing boards with a mechanism to evolve leadership without impacting performance.

 

A Structured Transition Mechanism

In some cases, boards use the co-executive leadership model as a structured transition mechanism. For example, when a new or newly appointed CEO works alongside their outgoing predecessor, the model can formalize continuity while allowing the new leader to gain confidence and context. Similarly, founder-led companies often use co-executive leadership arrangements to facilitate the transition from business to professional leadership. Co-CEO structures can also be effective in merger scenarios, where two co-CEOs allow both organizations to feel represented and reduce internal conflicts.

 

The Risks of Shared Leadership

While shared leadership can bring balance and breadth, it also carries governance risks that boards of directors must anticipate.

 

Ambiguity in decision-making is one of the biggest risks. When responsibility is shared without clear boundaries, accountability can become diluted. Strategic decisions can stall or be implemented in parallel without coordination. Boards of directors should be alert to early signs that this is happening: delayed decisions, conflicting communications, or a lack of clarity in attributing results; all of these can erode trust throughout the organization.

 

Tension between co-CEOs is inevitable. Each will likely have different leadership styles and communication methods, but it is critical that they present a united front to their employees and externally. When this tension is not managed effectively, it can lead the organization in very different directions.

 

 

What sets successful co-CEOs apart?

 

Through our work with boards of directors and senior executives, we observe patterns in successful co-CEO partnerships.

 

Four practices, in particular, distinguish successful co-CEO relationships:

 

Start with clarity and structure. Effective shared leadership begins with clarity, both in terms of mandate and mindset. Each CEO needs explicitly defined responsibilities, decision-making rights, and spheres of influence. Without clear accountability, even a well-intentioned collaboration can lead to duplication or indecisiveness.

 

The most successful co-CEO agreements establish which decisions are shared and which are the sole responsibility of a single leader, how to resolve overlapping authority situations, and when and how the board will be involved in joint decisions.

 

In practice, this often involves dividing oversight along business lines or functional lines; For example, one co-CEO might lead innovation, technology, or growth markets, while the other focuses on operations, performance, and stakeholder management.

 

Plan for conflict before it arises. Even the strongest alliances between co-CEOs face friction. But we know that tension, when productive, can be a feature, not a flaw, of successful leadership, provided it is managed properly. The difference between constructive debate and damaging conflict lies in how disagreements are identified, discussed, and resolved.

 

 

Boards of directors and chairpersons play a critical role in setting the tone from the outset. Defining when issues persist between co-CEOs and when the board should intervene prevents uncertainty from escalating. Equally important is cultivating a common language for feedback, where disagreements are treated as part of the quality of decisions, not as personal challenges to authority.

 

It is essential that conflict becomes a catalyst for stronger decisions, rather than a source of division. The most successful co-CEOs understand that alignment is not synonymous with uniformity. Their strength lies in the ability to question each other frankly and then present a united front externally.

 

Designing Succession in the Model

A co-CEO structure is inherently transitional. The question of “what happens next” must be addressed from the beginning. Effective boards of directors will establish clarity on how performance will be evaluated, when the structure will be reviewed, and under what conditions it might evolve into a single-leadership model. When this foresight is lacking, uncertainty can unsettle investors and management teams.

 

Investing in CEO Mentoring to Strengthen Collaboration Between Co-CEOs

Like any high-performing collaboration, the relationship between co-CEOs requires ongoing investment, trust building, and periodic adjustments.

 

Boards of directors play a crucial role in ensuring the necessary support is in place. CEO-specific coaching and mentoring can help both leaders manage differences in communication style, decision-making pace, and leadership approach before these differences become sources of friction. Ideally, boards should view CEO mentoring as an investment in leadership continuity, not as a corrective tool.

 

Beyond processes and structure, it is helpful to recognize that the success of co-leadership depends as much on character as on ability. The most effective co-CEOs demonstrate humility, curiosity, and empathy—qualities that foster mutual respect and shared decision-making. These behaviors can be developed through executive mentoring and leadership programs that strengthen relational skills: emotional intelligence, empathy, and open feedback.

 

When trust is strong, co-CEOs act more quickly, have a broader vision, and foster collaboration across the organization. When it is lacking, even the best-designed governance frameworks will struggle to compensate for this lack of trust.

 

 

A model for the future?

 

Shared leadership is not suitable for every organization. It requires alignment, clarity, and appropriate governance. However, the conditions driving its rise—accelerating change, increased scrutiny, and the growing complexity of roles—are not going away.

 

Boards of directors are right to question whether a single leader can realistically embody all the capabilities a modern company demands. For some, the answer may increasingly be that it is not necessary. As the demands of leadership intensify, shared leadership models may cease to be the exception and become a natural evolution.

 

 

 

Do two leaders mean double the benefits or double the risks?

The following contribution comes from Forbes and is authored by David Morel, a specialist in global workplace trends who is passionate about how business leaders can positively influence the future of work. He founded Tiger Recruitment in 2001 and, as CEO, leads the company, connecting senior executives with talented corporate and private sector professionals worldwide. Decades of recruitment experience have earned Tiger Recruitment a strong reputation among its international clientele. We are at a time of true transformation in the world of work, and David’s privileged position allows him to predict market trends, analyze workplace outlooks, recruitment strategies, hybrid work habits, the impact of AI on business, and much more. Follow David to stay up-to-date on the latest workplace trends and receive leadership advice.

 

 

 

 

In September 2025, the software company Oracle announced that it would be led by co-CEOs Clay Magouryk and Mike Sicilia. Oracle’s president and chief technology officer, Larry Ellison, stated that both had demonstrated their leadership and readiness, and that this wasn’t the first time the company had worked with a dual leadership model, having implemented it for five years starting in 2014. It’s undeniable that today’s business landscape is increasingly unpredictable and chaotic, but does sharing leadership make sense for the company or simply create more problems?

 

There are many reasons why companies might have co-CEOs: perhaps they are co-founders and the company has grown together; it could be linked to succession planning so that one of the partners can gain experience; or perhaps there’s a geographical division, with one being the national CEO and the other having a global focus. But it’s far from the typical job-sharing model, where one employee works part of the week and delegates responsibilities to a colleague. Running a successful company in 2026 requires agility, rapid decision-making, and a tolerance for risk. To be worthwhile, it must be a collaboration where two people achieve twice the results they would without the dual role.

 

 

There are also many risks associated with adopting a shared leadership model,

which is why it tends to fail more often than it succeeds. In theory, complementary skills should improve decision-making and strategic execution, but in practice, this could lead to power struggles or ego clashes that undermine any decision. Similarly, working together should, in theory, expedite decision-making and improve its quality. However, this could also slow things down due to the need for alignment, meaning the company fails to keep up with the competition and misses out on vital revenue or opportunities. The business continuity aspect of having two leaders is positive, but this can be achieved through diligent succession planning and the development of another executive, rather than relying on a «stand-in.»

 

One of the key considerations for any company contemplating a co-CEO arrangement is how stakeholders, particularly investors, will perceive this partnership. Employees and investors will quickly detect ambiguity in authority and feel less confident pursuing their own objectives for the company if it’s unclear who is ultimately responsible. For boards of directors, this raises challenges regarding how to structure governance and performance metrics to ensure accountability. Communication risks becoming muddled: how should co-CEOs handle important internal announcements, for example? What signals does shared leadership send about collaboration, hierarchy, and trust?

 

 

 

 

These risks are amplified by the fact that a successful CEO’s personality is typically decisive and visionary, and duplicating these characteristics is more likely to create conflict than strengthen leadership. While we are seeing a trend toward greater emotional intelligence and a greater willingness to listen to diverse perspectives in modern executive leadership, those qualities of quick decision-making, dynamism, and the ability to thrive in a fast-paced environment make the role better suited to a single, well-advised executive than to a pair of extroverts. Good intentions at the outset of a collaboration could crumble once the leadership team encounters its first obstacle.

 

These obstacles are becoming increasingly difficult.

The advancement of AI, the restructuring of the workplace, geopolitical instability, and economic uncertainty make the CEO’s job extremely complex. While it could be argued that shared leadership in this context would increase resilience, it also carries the risk of creating confusion. There are other ways to strengthen resilience, such as adding a diverse skill set to the executive board and ensuring a broad range of experience among non-executive members. Ensuring that division and operational leaders are aligned with the company’s values ​​and comfortable making decisions based on them can be just as impactful as having two names on the door.

 

The co-CEO model clearly works in some circumstances. At Netflix, there are two CEOs with clearly defined areas of responsibility, a move agreed upon as part of a long-planned succession by the company’s founder, Reed Hastings. Spotify has announced it will have co-chairmen following the resignation of its founder, Daniel Ek, as CEO. A 2022 study published in the Harvard Business Review compared shareholder returns for 87 companies with co-CEOs, and the average annual return for companies with co-CEOs was 9.5%, higher than the 6.9% for the comparison group. However, this practice remains relatively uncommon: as of September 2025, only 1.2% of companies in the Russell 3000 index had co-CEO arrangements.

 

As major brands test this model in the coming months and years, time will tell if the co-CEO model can truly deliver the benefits it promises in theory. Two heads are better than one, but the impact is very negative.

 

 

 

The Rise of Co-CEOs and Part-Time Executives: Why 2026 Will Redefine the Future of Senior Management

The following contribution comes from The CEO Publication, which describes itself as follows: We are much more than a magazine: we are a trusted platform where visionary leadership meets transformative vision. We are the voice of today’s most influential CEOs, entrepreneurs, and thought leaders, offering cutting-edge content that shapes the future of business.

Founded with the mission to inspire, inform, and empower global executives, The CEO Publication covers the latest trends in leadership, strategy, innovation, technology, and corporate culture. We highlight the pioneers driving change and showcase success stories that generate significant growth.

 

Our editorial team curates exclusive interviews, expert opinions, and in-depth articles that go beyond superficial news, helping our readers stay ahead in an increasingly complex and dynamic world.

Whether you’re leading a startup or running a Fortune 500 company, The CEO Publication gives you the insight and perspective you need to lead with clarity, courage, and vision.

Authorship by the team.

 

 

 

 

The Rise of Co-CEOs

Introduction: A New Era of Leadership Is Emerging

The business world is on the cusp of a leadership transformation. As 2026 approaches, traditional hierarchical leadership structures are giving way to collaborative and flexible executive models. At the heart of this shift is the rise of co-CEOs and part-time executives: two distinct but complementary trends that are reshaping how companies lead, grow, and survive in an ever-evolving business environment.

 

Gone are the days when an all-powerful CEO shouldered the entire weight of corporate success. In the modern era of global crises, digital acceleration, and talent disruption, shared leadership and part-time expertise are proving to be more sustainable, agile, and innovative alternatives.

 

In this article, we’ll explore how these trends are redefining senior management, why they’re gaining traction across various sectors, and what CEOs, boards of directors, and emerging leaders need to know to thrive in 2026 and beyond.

 

 

The Evolving Role of the CEO

The CEO has always symbolized authority, responsibility, and vision. However, the past decade has dramatically broadened the definition of what it means to be a CEO.

 

Between 2019 and 2024, CEOs faced pandemics, supply chain crises, AI disruption, stakeholder capitalism, and an explosion of ESG expectations. No single person, regardless of their skills, could effectively lead through such diverse challenges alone.

 

As a result, the CEO role is evolving, shifting from a solitary position to a more collaborative leadership ecosystem. Companies now recognize that agility, innovation, and resilience often stem from distributed decision-making, rather than hierarchical command structures.

 

The Co-CEO Model Explained

What is a Co-CEO?

The Co-CEO structure involves two (or more) people sharing the role of CEO. Each leader typically focuses on distinct strategic areas; for example, one manages internal operations and culture, while the other focuses on innovation and external growth.

 

Real-World Examples

Salesforce: Marc Benioff has repeatedly appointed Co-CEOs, enabling shared accountability and a better division of labor.

 

 

Netflix: The collaboration between Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters allowed creative and operational excellence to coexist.

 

SAP and Warby Parker: Both companies have successfully tested dual leadership at various stages of growth.

 

Why is it growing?

The complexity of modern business: Globalization, AI, and hybrid work require expertise in multiple areas.

 

Succession planning: Co-CEOs can facilitate transitions between outgoing and incoming leaders.

 

Speed ​​and innovation: Decision-making is streamlined when responsibilities are clearly divided.

 

Cultural balance: Dual leadership allows one CEO to focus on people and purpose, while the other drives performance and innovation.

 

Challenges of the Co-CEO model

However, the model is not without risks.

 

Ambiguity in authority: Boards of directors must clearly define their decision-making rights.

 

Potential cultural clashes: Harmony in leadership is essential; Ego clashes can be destructive.

 

Investor skepticism: Some shareholders still associate the sole CEO with greater responsibility.

 

Despite these challenges, the co-CEO trend continues to grow, especially among technology companies, startups, and global conglomerates seeking resilience through shared power and perspective.

 

 

The rise of part-time executives

Defining part-time leadership: A part-time executive is a senior leader (often in a top management position such as CMO, CFO, or COO) who works part-time or on a contract basis for multiple organizations. They bring high-level expertise without the cost or commitment of a full-time hire.

 

Why is this trending in 2026?

Part-time executives are gaining traction because they fill key needs during transformation processes. In uncertain markets, companies seek flexibility, cost efficiency, and specialized knowledge—qualities that part-time leaders provide.

 

Key benefits include:

 

Access to experienced executive talent without long-term fixed costs.

Rapid deployment of leadership during mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, or expansion phases.

A fresh, external perspective that counteracts internal biases.

 

Greater diversity of experience across various sectors.

 

A 2025 Korn Ferry survey revealed that nearly 37% of midsize companies plan to hire part-time or interim executives by mid-2026, a significant increase from 12% in 2020.

 

High-demand part-time roles:

Part-time CFOs: Leading capital restructuring, funding rounds, or IPO preparations.

Part-time CMOs: Overseeing brand repositioning or digital transformations.

Part-time HR COs: Building agile management systems or implementing D&I (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives. Part-time Chief Technology Officers/Systems Engineers: Implementing AI, cybersecurity, or automation roadmaps.

 

The Convergence: Hybrid Executive Models

The future of leadership could combine both models—co-leadership and part-time leadership—creating hybrid executive teams.

 

Imagine a company led by two Co-CEOs, supported by part-time specialists who integrate strategic needs such as ESG (environmental, social, and governance criteria), innovation, or AI governance.

 

This model improves adaptability, minimizes leadership burnout, and ensures a robust executive pool, even in a context of unprecedentedly rapid industrial evolution.

 

How Boards of Directors Adapt

Boards of directors, traditionally accustomed to the single-CEO model, are adapting rapidly. By 2026, corporate governance standards are shifting toward valuing collective responsibility over individual heroism.

 

Key adaptations include:

Clearly defining the roles of Co-CEOs in corporate governance charters.

Revising performance metrics to measure shared success. Redesigning compensation models to reflect collaboration, not competition.

 

Creating networks of fragmented executives to quickly address experience gaps.

 

According to Harvard Business Review, companies that experiment with shared or fragmented leadership structures report innovation cycles up to 20% faster and higher leadership satisfaction rates.

 

Cultural Impact: Collaboration over Command

The cultural repercussions of this leadership evolution are profound. The rise of co-CEOs and fragmented executives signals a broader organizational shift: from command and control to collaboration and trust.

 

How it Shapes Culture:

Shared Vision: Dual or fragmented leaders foster cross-functional alignment.

 

Psychological Safety: Teams see collaboration modeled by senior management.

 

Continuous Learning: Fractioned leaders bring constant external perspectives.

 

Reduced Burnout: Leadership pressure is distributed among competent individuals.

 

As younger generations enter executive roles, the idea of ​​»distributed power» aligns perfectly with their values ​​of inclusion, flexibility, and transparency.

 

 

What Does This Mean for the Future of Work? By 2026, leadership will be radically different.

 

The senior management of the future will be defined less by titles and more by team dynamics, adaptability, and shared intelligence.

 

Key characteristics of executive teams in 2026 include:

 

Fluidity: Roles will change according to the organization’s phases.

 

Scalability: Fractional leadership will allow for rapid expansion or downsizing.

 

Diversity of thought: The presence of multiple leaders implies broader perspectives.

 

Technological integration: AI tools will facilitate decision-making and collaboration.

 

This evolution represents a fundamental redefinition of leadership. The CEO of 2026 could be less of a «boss» and more of a collaborative orchestrator managing an ecosystem of experts.

 

Case studies: Leadership reinvented

1. The success of Netflix’s dual leadership

Netflix successfully implemented a co-CEO model, dividing creative and operational responsibilities. The result? More agile decision-making and cultural stability during a key turning point in the sector.

 

2. Salesforce’s Co-CEO Rotation

Salesforce’s recurring use of co-CEOs demonstrates the flexibility of shared leadership. It allows the company to experiment with different leadership styles while maintaining stability under Marc Benioff’s global vision.

 

3. Part-Time CFOs Power Startups

In the startup ecosystem, part-time CFOs have become indispensable for Series A to C funding rounds. Their expertise helps young companies manage financial complexity without committing to full-time executive salaries.

 

 

What CEOs and Future Leaders Should Do Now

1. Rethink Leadership Structures

Boards of directors and founders should evaluate whether a shared or fractional leadership model fits their growth stage and culture.

 

2. Develop Collaboration Skills

Future CEOs must excel at co-decision-making, emotional intelligence, and stakeholder communication.

 

3. Create Executive Ecosystems

Instead of hiring by titles, organizations should create modular teams of leaders whose strengths complement each other.

 

4. Leverage AI Governance

AI platforms can help co-CEOs and fractional leaders coordinate performance metrics and maintain transparency across shared roles.

 

5. Embrace Succession as a Process

Co-CEO structures are ideal for smooth succession planning, as they offer mentorship, continuity, and stability during leadership transitions.

 

Future Predictions: Senior Management in 2026 and Beyond

By 2026, 60% of global companies will have experimented with some form of shared or fractional leadership.

AI-powered decision analytics will make collaborative leadership more effective and measurable.

 

Boards of directors will prioritize dynamic executive teams over rigid hierarchies to foster resilience and innovation. Fractional senior management networks will become more formalized, evolving into a key element of the leadership talent market.

 

In short, the rise of co-CEOs and fragmented executives represents not only a structural shift but also a cultural and philosophical evolution in leadership.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Why will co-CEOs become more common in 2026?

 

Since business environments are too complex for a single individual to master, shared leadership enables agility, innovation, and a balanced approach across operational and strategic areas.

 

2. How do fragmented executives differ from consultants?

Part-time executives are integrated into the company’s leadership structure, taking on active roles in decision-making, while consultants typically provide external advice.

 

3. Are co-CEOs effective in the long term?

 

Yes, provided roles and lines of communication are clearly defined. Companies like Salesforce and Netflix have demonstrated that they can sustain growth and innovation.

 

4. Which sectors benefit most from part-time executives?

The technology, finance, healthcare, and startup sectors benefit most from their dynamism, due to their need for rapid scalability and cost control.

 

5. How can organizations prepare for part-time leadership?

 

By establishing transparent onboarding processes, shared digital collaboration tools, and metrics to measure short- and long-term impact.

 

6. Is this trend limited to the private sector?

 

No. Nonprofit and public sector organizations are also adopting part-time or shared leadership models for greater flexibility and inclusivity.

 

Conclusion: Collaborative senior management is here to stay. The rise of co-CEOs and part-time executives marks the end of the era of the lone CEO and the beginning of collaborative, adaptable leadership.

 

By 2026, the most successful companies will not be led by solitary visionaries, but by teams of executives working in harmony, combining experience, diversity, and dynamism.

 

In this new era of leadership, power lies not in control, but in collaboration.

 

And for forward-thinking organizations, this shift could be the key to surviving—and thriving—in the future of work.

 

 

 Why CEOs Must Lead with Optimism, Even in Times of Uncertainty

The following contribution comes from the Fast Company website, which defines itself as follows: Fast Company is the world’s leading business media brand, with an editorial focus on technological innovation, leadership, transformative ideas, creativity, and design. Aimed at the most forward-thinking business leaders, Fast Company inspires its readers to think big, lead with purpose, embrace change, and shape the future of business.

Launched in November 1995 by Alan Webber and Bill Taylor, two former editors of Harvard Business Review, Fast Company magazine was founded on a fundamental premise: a global revolution was transforming business, and business was transforming the world. Leaving behind the old rules of business, Fast Company set out to document how constantly changing companies create and compete, highlight new business practices, and introduce the teams and individuals who are creating the future and reinventing business.

The article is authored by Sebastian Buck, co-founder of enso.

 

 

 

 

Optimism is easy in a bull market, but it’s an even more important and consequential choice for leaders when fear is in vogue and the future looks uncertain.

 

By Sebastian Buck

 

In this year’s edition of its Annual Chief Executive Survey, PwC revealed that the 4,400 CEOs interviewed are a pessimistic bunch: 73% believe global economic growth will slow, only 42% are confident in their company’s prospects for the coming year, and 40% don’t believe their companies will be financially viable in a decade if they continue on their current path.

 

One way to interpret these results is to marvel at the herd mentality of the CEOs, since last year’s results were completely different, with 77% believing in global growth. Perhaps CEOs were too optimistic last year and too pessimistic this year. Another way to interpret pessimism is as a self-fulfilling prophecy: leaders focus on cutting operating costs, raising prices, reducing staff, and implementing hiring freezes—all of which lower team morale and economic activity, thus bringing pessimistic fears to fruition.

 

Is pessimism productive? And if not, how can we overcome it? At Enso, the future-design company I help lead, we often see leaders torn between “pragmatic pessimism” and a desire to move forward, or even to take a leap forward. So, how should we address this tension?

 

Does all this pessimism benefit these CEOs, their companies, and us as a society? And if not, what might instill optimism in them?

 

 

Why choose optimism?

 

Clearly, we live in challenging times, and many people are struggling to achieve the basic stability that fosters an optimistic outlook. After years of pandemic, inequality, war, inflation, stress, and division, is it perhaps fair to be pessimistic? And given the widespread arrogance of Silicon Valley’s “change the world” mantra, has optimism been fundamentally discredited? Adopting a pessimistic mindset, especially today, can feel like “good management,” a “pragmatic approach,” and a way to “address problems rather than ignore them.”

 

But while it’s important to learn from what’s going wrong, we risk taking pessimism too far. As news producers and social media algorithms well know, we tend to pay more attention to negative news than positive news, so the average sentiment of popular news stories has become significantly more negative. We are susceptible to the availability heuristic, whereby we estimate the likelihood of an event based on how easily examples come to mind. For example, news of layoffs at a major company (say, 10,000 at Microsoft) can stick in the minds of CEOs and influence their decision-making more than the underlying data of historically strong job creation (more than 10 million jobs created in the United States in the last two years). As Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman states, “People tend to assess the relative importance of issues by how easily they recall them, and this is largely determined by media coverage.”

 

 

As a result, people are significantly more pessimistic when assessing the state of the world than when assessing their own experience: 85% of Americans are satisfied with their lives, but only 17% are satisfied with the current state of the United States. CEOs are certainly prone to this same perception gap; but given the consequences of their decisions, it is important that they transcend the availability heuristic and make more objective decisions when determining the future of their companies and their employees. The livelihoods of millions depend on it.

 

Optimism—hope and confidence in the future or in specific future outcomes—is powerful. Optimists tend to enjoy greater well-being, are more proactive about their health, have stronger immune systems, and live longer; they are more resilient and persevering in their studies. They have higher job performance and satisfaction, earn higher incomes, are more likely to advance in their careers, and have been shown to sell 57% more than pessimists: optimism is a worthwhile investment. Optimists seek challenges and take risks; it’s an essential characteristic of entrepreneurs. Daniel Kahneman describes optimism as «the engine of capitalism» because it’s necessary to strive for success in the face of great adversity.

 

While optimism doesn’t guarantee success, it at least creates space for magic. Instead of focusing on surviving or navigating challenges, we can focus on moving forward. Legendary designer Bruce Mau considers optimism fundamental to the design process: «Pessimism breeds a mind-closing cynicism; only through optimism does opportunity become visible.»

 

Optimism is easy in a bull market, but it becomes an even more important and consequential choice for leaders when fear is in vogue and the path ahead seems uncertain. When President Kennedy set America on course for the moon, imploring the nation to «set sail on this new sea… for the progress of all peoples,» the path wasn’t clear, easy, or obvious; The Soviet Union had already gained a significant advantage with Sputnik and Yuri Gagarin’s arrival in space.

 

But Kennedy recognized that pessimism at that time amounted to giving up on the future. We know that emotions are contagious; as a leader in precarious times, Kennedy could have unleashed a contagion of fear or optimism. Choosing optimism led to one of the most glorious periods in American history, including a huge scientific and economic dividend, and a ripple effect of confidence in new possibilities.

 

Today, many believe we are once again on the cusp of an era of technological optimism, with technologies like mRNA, generative artificial intelligence, and zero-carbon nuclear fusion just around the corner. Leaders must not give up on the future. But how?

 

 

How to create from optimism

Becoming aware of the heuristics that lead us to negativity can bring about a radical change: once we observe them in action, we have greater freedom to decide whether our negative emotional reaction is valid or not. For those CEOs who felt optimistic last year but pessimistic this year, their companies’ conditions may have changed drastically, or they may have been susceptible to the availability heuristic, which prevented them from having a more objective view. It’s curious that Meta, Amazon, Microsoft, and Google all opted to lay off between 10,000 and 12,000 workers; perhaps an objective analysis of these complex companies operating in different markets led to the same solution for each, or perhaps we are witnessing the power of suggestion and a pessimistic herd mentality at play.

 

 

A central theme in the advice of Kahneman and other leadership experts for overcoming systemic bias (whether optimism or pessimism) could be summarized as: “Look beyond the obvious, with a more critical perspective.” They encourage leaders to take a broad view of goals (rather than settling for a few predetermined objectives); to explore multiple potential futures instead of just one; to seek broader, longer-term data to overcome the availability heuristic; and to seek external advice and perspectives. “As a general rule, it’s good to anticipate three possible futures, set three key objectives, and generate three viable options for each decision scenario.”

 

On an individual level, the most important shift toward optimism lies in the power of cultivating our own mindset. We can choose to see current market and societal conditions as opportunities for progress, and we can look for what works instead of focusing solely on what doesn’t. We can avoid asking ourselves, “Why is this happening to me?” (adopting a suffering mindset), and instead ask ourselves, “Why is this happening to me, and how can I learn and grow from it?” Choosing optimism can be difficult. In my own recent experience undergoing cancer treatment, the choice became vividly clear: focus on all the possible negative outcomes or focus on the learning opportunities and the range of positive outcomes available.

 

Leaders facing challenging circumstances today can either become fixated on negative projections, which will likely drain their organizations’ energy, or they can choose to channel their energy and inspire their organizations around the possibilities ahead. To do so, it’s necessary to abandon the preconceived notion that pessimism is “responsible management”: chances are, any innovation and success a company has had so far has been driven by optimism, and effective management might just consist of maintaining that attitude.

 

Of course, this may involve making difficult decisions, but these are made with a more constructive approach and planning than simply shrinking out of fear of a recession. The future design process we use to move beyond the predetermined future involves designing multiple scenarios for the company’s future, from the most achievable to the most ambitious, and leveraging the freedom of that exploration to seek out new business perspectives.

 

One way forward is to not accept the seemingly predetermined future. It begins by asking the right questions, exploring the possibilities, and then developing a strategic plan for the path forward. Unlike spreadsheet-based analytical forecasting, this process is not about extrapolating current trends, but about discovering and designing breakthroughs driven by optimism.

 

If the mindset of CEOs becomes self-fulfilling prophecies, and if their emotions are contagious, perhaps they have a responsibility, to their companies and to society, to do everything possible to overcome the allure of pessimism and define a positive path toward the future. We can resign ourselves to a future determined by fear, or we can design our own path toward a brighter future.

 

The deadline to enter Fast Company’s Brands That Matter Awards is Friday, May 15 at 11:59 p.m. Pacific Time. Submit your entry today!

 

 

 Decision-Making in the Age of Uncertainty: Tools and Mindsets for Confident Leadership

The following contribution comes from the MyBigSky portal, which defines itself as follows: At MyBigSky, we believe that high-performing leadership should not come at the expense of joy and personal fulfillment. Our Leadership Development Approach is designed to help leaders achieve success without sacrificing their well-being. In today’s world, success is often measured by numbers—revenue, profit, and market share—but true leadership goes beyond financial metrics. It’s about leading with purpose, energy, and passion, creating a meaningful and rewarding experience for oneself and those around us.

We exist to redefine business success, helping individuals and teams overcome traditional performance pressures and enter a space where joy, personal fulfillment, and sustainable success go hand in hand. Because when leaders feel fulfilled, they not only perform better, but they also inspire others to do the same.

Authorship by the team.

 

 

The landscape for leaders has never been more complex or evolved so rapidly. With digital disruption, global volatility, and shifting market demands, today’s executives are forced to make bold decisions amid ambiguity. The good news? New frameworks, digital tools, and collaborative mindsets are empowering leaders to navigate uncertainty with greater confidence than ever before.

 

Frameworks for Managing Complexity

Modern decision-making is rarely simple. Leaders must balance data, intuition, and ethical considerations while adapting to rapidly changing scenarios. Here are some of the most effective frameworks:

 

The Cynefin Framework: This model helps leaders distinguish between simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic situations, guiding them to adapt their approach accordingly. For example, in complex scenarios where cause-and-effect relationships are unclear, leaders are encouraged to experiment, anticipate outcomes, and adapt quickly.

 

SWOT Analysis and Eisenhower Matrix: These classic tools remain invaluable for clarifying priorities, assessing risks, and aligning decisions with long-term goals.

 

Scenario Planning: By visualizing multiple plausible futures, leaders can test strategies and prepare for a variety of outcomes—essential in today’s unpredictable world.

 

Ethical Decision-Making Models: As ethical considerations become increasingly crucial, structured frameworks help ensure that decisions align with core values ​​and stakeholder interests.

 

Digital Tools that Empower Confident Decisions: The digital revolution has transformed how leaders gather information and make decisions:

 

AI-Powered Insights: Tools like Sherpa AI and ChatGPT aggregate and analyze large datasets, helping leaders identify trends, forecast outcomes, and simulate business scenarios before committing to a course of action.

 

Business intelligence and predictive analytics: Platforms like Tableau and Power BI provide real-time dashboards and forecasts that enable data-driven decision-making and reduce uncertainty.

 

Mind maps and decision trees: Visual tools help leaders organize complex information and evaluate potential outcomes, facilitating even the most intricate decisions.

 

Collaborative platforms: Digital workspaces and peer group forums allow leaders to leverage collective knowledge, share perspectives, and validate ideas before moving forward.

 

 

The Power of Data, Intuition, and Peer Perspectives

While data-driven decision-making is booming, the best leaders know that numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. Intuition, honed through experience, remains essential, especially when dealing with ambiguity or incomplete data.

 

Real-world example: A CEO of a tech company faced a crucial decision regarding international expansion. Data analysis highlighted promising markets, but discussions with colleagues revealed cultural and regulatory nuances that the numbers didn’t capture. By combining data, intuition, and peer feedback, the CEO made a confident and well-informed decision, leading to a successful launch.

 

Peer Groups: Your Secret Weapon for Better Decisions

Peer groups are a key factor in leadership decision-making. They offer:

 

Diverse Perspectives: Leaders gain fresh approaches to challenges, avoiding tunnel vision and uncovering blind spots.

 

Collective Problem Solving: Presenting a dilemma to a peer group can generate innovative solutions and increase confidence in the final decision.

 

Psychological Safety: These trusted circles provide a safe space to test ideas, share doubts, and learn from each other’s experiences without fear of judgment.

 

Example: A marketing director, undecided about a radical rebranding, turned to her peer group to validate her reasoning. The group’s honest feedback and encouragement gave her the confidence to move forward, resulting in a bold and successful campaign.

 

Developing Your Decision-Making Toolkit

To thrive in times of uncertainty, leaders must:

 

Combine Data and Intuition: Use data analytics to inform your instincts, not replace them.

 

Embrace Structured Frameworks: Apply models like Cynefin or scenario planning to clarify complexity.

 

Leverage Digital Tools: Invest in platforms that provide real-time insights, visualization, and collaboration.

 

Seek support from colleagues: Regularly engage with trusted colleagues to refine your thinking and validate your decisions.

 

Reflect and learn: Keep track of decisions and review the results to continuously improve the process.

 

Takeaways: Confident Leadership in Times of Uncertainty

In the age of uncertainty, confident decision-making is a combination of smart tools, structured frameworks, and the wisdom of collective experience. By combining data, intuition, and the support of their colleagues, today’s leaders can make bold and effective decisions, even when the path ahead is unclear.

 

Ready to lead with confidence? Develop your toolkit, connect with your colleagues, and transform uncertainty into opportunity. 🚀

 

Discover more leadership tips and join a group of colleagues on MyBigSky.

 

 

Jean-Pierre Conte: How Leaders Make Tough Decisions

The following contribution comes from the StartupValley portal, which describes itself as follows: StartupValley is one of Europe’s leading magazines for startups, founders, and entrepreneurs. We publish daily news about emerging trends, groundbreaking technologies, and innovative business models that are shaping the international startup landscape. What sets us apart? Our exclusive interviews with successful founders and prominent investors, as well as in-depth analysis with a focus on the European startup ecosystem.

Authored by the StartupValley team

 

 

 

 

Decision-making in uncertainty and risk management

 

Table of Contents

Leadership in uncertainty in 2025

Creating effective decision-making frameworks under pressure

Managing decisions with incomplete information

Balancing speed and quality in critical decisions

Developing organizational decision-making capacity

Leadership in uncertainty in 2025

 

Leaders will face greater uncertainty in 2025 than perhaps at any other time in recent history. According to the latest KPMG study, CEO confidence in global economic conditions has fallen to just over two-thirds, the lowest level recorded since 2021. Nearly three-quarters of executives have already revised their growth plans to address interconnected challenges. Jean-Pierre Conte, managing partner of the family-owned firm Lupine Crest Capital, honed his decision-making approach over decades navigating volatile markets, unexpected crises, and high-risk investments where poor choices meant permanent capital losses.

 

The traditional model for executive decision-making no longer works. Economic volatility, geopolitical tensions, and technological disruption create conditions in which what seemed sound last quarter may require rapid adjustments today. Roughly half of all CEOs are now planning more conservative approaches for 2025 and 2026, prioritizing incremental moves over bold commitments that require significant capital investment. Jean-Pierre Conte’s experience leading a San Francisco-based private equity firm through multiple economic cycles taught him that effective leaders distinguish between risks worth taking and uncertainty that demands caution.

 

A recent study of CEOs highlights the most valued skills today: quick and agile decision-making tops the list at 26%, followed by transparent communication at 24%, and the ability to identify and manage risks effectively at 23%. These skills don’t emerge by chance; they are developed through the deliberate practice of making difficult decisions under pressure. «I believe that to be an entrepreneur, you have to be optimistic,» Jean-Pierre Conte has said about his decision-making philosophy. «To build a business, you have to be optimistic about the future and know that you can influence things simply by working hard or thinking differently.»

 

 

Developing Effective Decision-Making Frameworks Under Pressure

Jean-Pierre Conte’s approach to complex decisions begins with understanding what is truly at stake. Research on risk management in private equity funds identifies three distinct categories: market risk stemming from macroeconomic factors, liquidity risk related to difficulties in exiting positions, and cash flow risk involving uncertainty at the time of distribution. Each requires different assessment methods and mitigation strategies. Leaders who confuse these different risk categories make poorer decisions because they apply flawed frameworks to the

 

Thorough due diligence is the foundation of sound decisions. Studies on risk management in private equity highlight that a meticulous assessment of the financial health, market position, and management quality of target companies helps identify potential red flags before committing capital. Jean-Pierre Conte applied this principle not only to investment decisions but also to operational decisions across all his portfolio companies, evaluating executive hires, changes in direction, and exit timing with the same rigor as the initial analysis of acquisitions.

 

The best decision-makers recognize their limitations. CEOs acknowledge the need to rethink organizational roles and capabilities, adapting growth strategies to the current reality. Jean-Pierre Conte’s experience on the boards of healthcare technology, sports investment, and software companies gave him insight into sectors where specialization is more important than general business knowledge. He learned to identify when decisions required the external perspective of specialists who understood technical details outside his area of ​​expertise.

 

Decision Management When Information Is Incomplete

Perfect information rarely exists when decisions are crucial. Financial volatility is now among the top concerns of 47% of CEOs, a significant increase from the previous quarter. Jean-Pierre Conte’s career in the investment world taught him that waiting for absolute certainty often means missing opportunities altogether. The challenge lies in distinguishing between decisions that benefit from deeper analysis and those where delay creates bigger problems than imperfect information.

 

Private equity firms are increasingly using risk analysis and modeling tools that apply machine learning to historical data, predicting potential risks and market trends. These tools simulate different scenarios, providing a deeper understanding of probability distributions rather than point forecasts. Jean-Pierre Conte’s analytical framework incorporated quantitative modeling, recognizing that models only capture patterns from past data; they cannot predict unprecedented events or structural market changes.

 

Scenario planning becomes essential when uncertainty is high.

A McKinsey study reveals that executive teams and boards of directors frequently address issues such as supply chain footprint decisions and how to incorporate flexibility into operations. Jean-Pierre Conte practiced analyzing multiple potential outcomes before making decisions, asking himself not only what might go well, but also what specific measures would mitigate the damage if circumstances worsened.

 

Balancing speed with quality in high-stakes decisions.

 

Speed ​​in decision-making has become a competitive advantage. Quick and agile decision-making is now positioned as the primary leadership capability required in today’s environment. However, speed without quality creates different problems than slow deliberation. Jean-Pierre Conte’s experience showed him that the best leaders develop good judgment to discern which decisions require thorough analysis and which benefit from quick action based on limited information.

 

 

Some decisions are reversible, while others have consequences that last for years. Private equity fund structures create binding commitments with limited liquidity: investors generally cannot withdraw capital during lock-up periods, and IPOs or acquisitions take much longer than selling shares on the stock exchange. Jean-Pierre Conte learned to identify the reversibility of decisions as a key variable. Reversible decisions allow for faster action with less complete information, as mistakes can be corrected. Irreversible decisions warrant more thorough analysis, despite the time this entails.

 

Portfolio monitoring provides early warning signals when decisions are not producing the expected results. Regular performance reviews allow fund managers to detect emerging problems and take corrective action before the situation worsens. The discipline of regular performance reviews—encompassing not only financial metrics but also operational indicators and market position—enables leaders to adjust course before inertia makes change prohibitively expensive.

 

Developing Organizational Decision-Making Capacity

Great leaders not only make good decisions, but they also build organizations capable of making sound decisions at all levels. Agile planning processes, distributed authority, and careful attention to external signals are now essential competencies for management teams navigating an environment of constant uncertainty. Jean-Pierre Conte’s work on boards of directors emphasized developing this capacity within portfolio companies, rather than centralizing all important decisions at the top.

 

Strong relationships with limited partners and stakeholders improve the quality of decisions. Transparent and regular communication fosters trust, increasing the likelihood of gaining support for difficult decisions that may not yield immediate results. Leaders who maintain open channels during periods of stability have greater credibility when circumstances force them to make uncomfortable choices.

 

Effectiveness in decision-making is not measured by perfection, but by the ratio of good results to opportunities seized. Risk management in private equity is not just about preventing losses, but also about preserving capital, increasing profitability through calculated risks, aligning decisions with objectives, and developing the resilience needed to adapt to unforeseen events. Leaders who maintain this balanced perspective avoid both reckless bets and paralysis from fear of making mistakes. Making decisions under uncertainty requires accepting that some well-founded decisions will produce poor results, while others, though questionable, will occasionally yield good results. The goal is to consistently tip the odds in favorable directions over time, not to achieve impossible certainty before acting.

 

Want to learn more? Read this interview with Jean-Pierre Conte.

 

Author: Harry Wilson is the Director of Digital Marketing at Globex Outreach. He helps clients grow their online businesses and occasionally blogs to share his expertise with other professionals.

 

The statements made by the author and interviewee do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors or publisher.

 

 

 

Co-CEOs: Are Two Better Than One?

The following contribution comes from the Chief Executive Group website, which defines itself as follows: Chief Executive Group exists to improve the performance of CEOs, senior executives, and directors of U.S. public companies, helping them grow their companies, build their communities, and strengthen society.

The article is authored by Russ Banham, a regular contributor to this publication.

 

 

 

 

The answer appears to be yes, two are better than one. Performance data from 30 companies that transitioned from traditional leadership with a single CEO to a co-CEO structure showed a positive market reaction.

 

Two for the Road: The Rise of Co-CEOs

 

Are Two Better Than One?

 

“Co-CEOs are ideal in many situations, especially when the executives oversee each other’s actions and possess complementary skills,” says Stephen Ferris, professor of finance and holder of the Rogers Chair in Money, Credit, and Banking at the University of Missouri’s Trulaske College of Business. Ferris has studied the effectiveness of the co-CEO model and argues that it is a very effective way to run a business. “Co-CEOs are ideal in many situations, especially when the executives oversee each other’s actions and possess complementary skills,” he explains. “In fact, it’s a very successful model.” From his research on more than 100 examples of shared governance, Ferris highlights the following:

 

“Complementarity of roles.” Of the more than 100 co-leadership structures analyzed in the study, Ferris found that 45% exhibited what he calls “functional complementarity,” while another 45% exhibited “educational complementarity” (i.e., one CEO with a postgraduate degree in engineering and the other with an MBA or a law degree). “Ninety percent of the sample showed some complementarity in terms of roles and backgrounds, which allows for a much broader range of experiences and ideas for designing a strategy or making decisions,” Ferris says.

 

Pay gap. Another interesting finding: Co-CEOs earn slightly less than twice what a sole CEO would. This may seem excessive, but Ferris says the expense can be justified, given the differences in the type of compensation. “Co-CEOs receive significantly less incentive compensation, but equivalent amounts of cash compensation,” he explains. “The co-CEO team receives, on average, 35.7% of the stock options that a sole CEO receives, which we interpret positively.”

 

The reason a sole CEO’s compensation is geared toward maximizing shareholder value is to incentivize performance. However, with co-CEOs, “there’s a greater component of self-control,” says Ferris. “Each one ensures the other is working as diligently as possible to drive results; therefore, there’s less need to tie compensation to performance.”

 

Tenure. One similarity between the two leadership models is tenure: a median of 4.5 years for co-CEOs and just over five years for a sole CEO. Ferris comments, “This tells me that the co-CEO model works just as well as the CEO model; otherwise, we would see a greater disparity.”

 

 

Double the Pleasure

 

Aspen Insurance had been led by co-CEOs for the past year and a half; so when it was time for a change at the top, the company opted for the same shared governance model.

 

The reason is simple: the model worked for this diversified provider of insurance and reinsurance products, with $9.3 billion in assets and more than 670 employees in eight countries. “We were becoming increasingly diversified geographically and in terms of products, and it was very difficult for one person to cover all the time zones while also maintaining the control we wanted over the business,” explains Rupert Villers, co-CEO (formerly with John Cavoores). “John and I got along great; we’ve known each other for a long time, we have different skill sets, and we’re both straightforward. Sometimes people thought we were having heated arguments, but we were simply working things out.”

 

A Big Feud? Does this worry Mario Vitale, former CEO of the insurance brokerage Willis North America and Villers’ new partner? «I’ve held shared leadership positions before, though not as co-CEO,» says Vitale. «If you don’t have an inflated ego, it can work. The key is complementing each other’s strengths. Rupert and I have some experience in common, but much of our backgrounds are diverse: we bring different things to the table. He’ll lead certain responsibilities and I’ll lead others, which makes decision-making easier.»

 

Vitale believes two people may be necessary to run such a large global company. «The business world is more global and complex than ever, with more regulations and reporting requirements,» he notes. «It’s a lot of responsibility for one person.»

 

There’s another reason he’s excited about sharing the reins. «For the first time in my career, I can go on vacation without taking my BlackBerry,» he says. «I know Rupert can handle anything that comes up.»

 

The Market Values ​​the Co-CEO Structure

Performance data from 30 companies that transitioned from traditional single-CEO leadership to a co-CEO structure show a positive market reaction.

 

Given the relative rarity of co-CEO leadership structures, one might expect the market to view them with suspicion. However, Professor Stephen Ferris of the University of Missouri, who has conducted extensive research on the effectiveness of the co-CEO model, says this is not the case. “Our research shows that the market reacts positively and significantly to the announcement of a dual CEO appointment,” explains Ferris, who analyzed data from 30 companies that announced such transitions to understand the market response to the co-CEO structure. “The average abnormal return following the announcement—that is, the return adjusted for normal market fluctuations and the company’s expected return, given its level of risk—was 2.58%.” If the market disliked or was indifferent to these agreements, the return after the announcement would be zero.

 

The table below presents these findings, as well as the returns of the «abnormal announcements» for the periods before and after the announcement. «We wanted to analyze what happened if the announcement was made late and the market couldn’t grasp the impact on the first day, as well as what happened if information leaked and people knew the announcement was coming,» explains Ferris. In all cases, the impact was positive and significant, suggesting that the market generally views a co-executive leadership agreement as a positive development.

 

Market Return Following the Announcement of a Co-Executive Leadership Structure

CAAR Event Period*

Announcement Day: 2.58%

Announcement Day and Day After: 2.81%

Day Before and Day After: 6.19%

*CAAR = Cumulative Average Abnormal Return

 

 

Too Many Cooks

The single-CEO model is the dominant paradigm of corporate leadership, though co-CEO partnerships show promise. But five CEOs? Is it possible for five people to run a large, growing company without conflict?

 

Mobi Wireless Management seems to think so. Founded in 2008 by five CEOs who became friends in high school, this Indianapolis-based company manages mobile accounts for customers. The company is a subsidiary of another business the same five started 10 years ago: Bluefish Wireless Management. Are they still friends?

 

“We’re still here,” says Scott Kraege, one of the five managing partners of both companies. “We’ve been struggling and succeeding together for a decade, even though we sometimes get in each other’s way. If we’re not prepared for confrontation, dialogue, and debate, we won’t make it.”

 

And they certainly are. Since 2009, Mobi’s revenue has skyrocketed by 600%, and the number of managed wireless lines has grown by 78%. The two companies together employ 130 people. The management team meets once a week to discuss all strategies and plans in what the CEOs call the «round table.» «When we first started meeting, it was at the home of one of us, who was single at the time, and he only had a small round table, so that’s what we called it,» explains Kraege. «Now we have a large round table.»

 

In these meetings, the CEOs leverage each other’s skills, avoiding the typical power struggles and mutual recriminations that doom many committee-based management structures to failure. «Each of us is in charge of our own department,» says Kraege, who heads new business marketing. Others handle IT, finance, human resources, and business development, although there is some overlap. Most discussions end with all five CEOs agreeing on the decision being addressed that day.

 

“We’ve had some heated and lengthy discussions,” admits Kraege, “but that’s healthy. Everything is discussed openly, everyone presents their point of view, and in the end, we all support what we decide.”

 

 

What drives co-CEO leadership?

 

According to a survey of 111 companies with co-CEOs, the circumstances are distributed as follows:

 

 

CEO’s Guide to Achieving Results in Times of Uncertainty

The following contribution comes from the BCG website, which defines itself as follows: At BCG, we have a simple statement that summarizes our purpose as a global business consulting firm: to unleash the potential of those who drive the world’s progress. We strive to live our purpose through our daily work, focusing on five fundamental principles:

We generate knowledge by challenging traditional thinking and ways of operating, bringing fresh perspectives to the most complex problems.

We drive inspirational impact by looking beyond the next timeframe, into the next decade, and collaborating closely with our clients to empower and energize their organizations.

We overcome complexity by uncovering unique sources of competitive advantage and hidden truths in dynamic and complex systems.

Authorship by the team.

 

 

Key takeaways: By controlling costs, leveraging new technologies, and strengthening organizational culture, CEOs can achieve their strategic goals in 2025 and beyond.

 

What’s at stake? The Multibillion-Dollar Challenge for CEOs in 2025: Executing Their Most Important Priorities in Times of Uncertainty

 

How can leaders focus on what matters most, ensuring their companies achieve their strategic objectives in full, on time, and within budget? As CEOs grapple with the implications of the new US administration’s policies for their businesses (not to mention ongoing geopolitical conflicts, market volatility, and the impacts of climate change), this already demanding task becomes even more complex.

 

What the numbers say:

 

40%

feel ill-prepared for market shocks in 2025.

The number one strategic priority identified is cost reduction.

 

Two-thirds

plan to reinvest the savings from cost reductions into growth.

 

86%

plan to invest in AI or advanced analytics by 2025.

According to a BCG study, costs were the top concern for CEOs at the beginning of 2024. And they remain so in 2025. The figures suggest that companies are seeking a path to greater efficiency and streamlined operations without sacrificing opportunities for competitive advantage, innovation, and growth.

 

In charting their course to the future, leaders will need to navigate the challenges in search of a more predictable foundation. They must remain flexible, ready to adapt and reorient themselves based on changing market conditions or policies. This means focusing on costs.

 

Achieving Results Despite Uncertainty

CEOs must set ambitious cost targets and be confident that their organizations can achieve them. They must avoid illusory goals: short-term reductions that look impressive on paper but never translate into real benefits.

 

When implemented correctly, effective cost management enables companies to achieve their most important goals: driving innovation, accessing new markets, developing talent, and much more. Here’s how CEOs can achieve it.

 

Foster a culture of cost discipline. Cutting costs doesn’t have to mean lowering employee engagement. In fact, a recent BCG study reveals that the most successful cost management programs improve employee morale.

 

 

CEOs are critical to building this culture. More than 80% of the most efficient and agile organizations—those that see a significant impact from their cost initiatives and enjoy the most competitive market position—communicate their cost targets directly from senior management, compared to less than 40% of underperforming companies.

 

Leaders lead by example, modeling cost-conscious behaviors. They incentivize and reward these same behaviors throughout the company, empowering employees to take on greater responsibility and more significant roles, with the goal of reducing bureaucracy.

 

A possible first step: Identify a clear goal for your cost-reduction efforts and communicate it comprehensively. Every employee needs to understand the strategy behind the company’s cost-cutting decisions. Work with your leadership team to create an inspiring change narrative, explaining how cost reduction can lead to increased market share, competitive advantage, and exceptional profitability. Establishing a clear vision and ensuring its broad communication throughout the organization will make the transition seem more meaningful and, ultimately, acceptable to employees.

 

Precise cuts. Cost-cutting programs fail when leaders implement drastic, company-wide reductions. Don’t assume that rigid revisions of the annual budget, indiscriminate staff reductions, or the closure of business functions will generate structural and sustainable savings without harming operations or hindering growth.

 

This is especially true when it comes to talent. The boom-and-bust cycle of staffing can be costly and counterproductive. Companies often fail to make the most of the employees they already have. As AI, innovation, and capitalizing on new market opportunities become more important, companies must strive to identify ways to position their employees to make the greatest impact and develop the necessary programs to support this effort.

 

Achieve this by reducing waste and eliminating less critical tasks. Look for unnecessary hierarchical levels and duplicated or competing activities. Whenever possible, automate and digitize, redirecting your talent toward higher-priority activities that align with management objectives and deliver tangible business value. Employee morale will improve, costs will decrease, and the organization will be better prepared for execution.

 

Potential first step: Reduce or eliminate high-end internal services that generate unnecessary expenses with little added value for the business. For example, an internal department might spend a lot of time producing monthly newsletters that few employees read; that same department could be more useful to the company managing a self-service communication portal or writing targeted updates. When in doubt, reallocate overhead resources to activities that add value and increase productivity.

 

Strengthen the supply chain. Ongoing geopolitical tensions, shifting trade patterns, and new tariffs mean that companies’ supply chains will remain under pressure for the foreseeable future. Regardless of their current confidence, CEOs must act immediately to ensure their supply chains are flexible, resilient, and supported by the latest technologies.

 

 

Key performance indicators (KPIs) should focus on measuring the return on investment (ROI) for innovation, along with cost-saving initiatives. Developing dynamic cost models and three-year plans will enable organizations to optimize in-house versus outsourced decisions and align culture with cost-saving objectives to drive lasting reductions. Prioritize the stability of your supply chain now so it doesn’t compromise your ability to achieve your goals later.

 

 

Potential first step: Improve your company’s crisis response capabilities to anticipate and mitigate disruptions before the competition. Implementing new tools, such as a dynamic model that quantifies costs at every stage and process, digital twins, and real-time AI systems, is critical to this end. CEOs who leverage these technologies will be able to react efficiently to unexpected events. From there, leaders should develop nearshoring strategies and regional alliances to reduce reliance on vulnerable global routes.

 

Strategically invest in AI. Scale relentlessly. AI isn’t always the solution to every problem. How companies integrate this technology and rethink their work processes will make all the difference. Many organizations struggle to move beyond scaling pilot projects and translate AI-driven efficiencies into a measurable impact on their bottom line. Those that do successfully implement and scale AI initiatives often fail to eradicate the old behaviors and legacy infrastructure that the new technologies were designed to replace, and therefore don’t realize the savings.

 

However, leading companies—those that successfully integrate AI into their operations—are increasing productivity, accelerating transformation, reducing costs, and improving the customer and employee experience. These organizations focus their AI investments on restructuring critical functions, scaling a few high-impact initiatives, and prioritizing people and process changes over algorithms. Compared to laggards, they achieve 150% revenue growth, 180% total shareholder return, and 140% higher employee satisfaction by making AI a fundamental driver of business value.

 

Possible first step: Start by restructuring key functions, not just automating processes. Go beyond optimizing existing workflows and instead pursue efficiency and new business capabilities. Align AI initiatives with business priorities, focusing on two to four transformation areas that will have the greatest impact. Establish clear key performance indicators (KPIs) that measure cost savings and new value creation, such as impact on revenue, customer experience, and product or service innovation. Invest in talent and organizational change: dedicate 70% of AI transformation efforts to training teams and integrating technology into daily decision-making. Final Thoughts

CEOs have a demanding agenda in the coming months. They must closely monitor market signals, filter out irrelevant information, and identify opportunities where the competition sees only obstacles. Successful leaders will cut costs, optimize their portfolios, and dedicate significant resources to anticipating news.

 

Beyond these priorities, leaders cannot pursue short-term gains at the expense of long-term prospects, nor can they ignore future risks. Our research suggests that a staggering 25% of corporations’ EBITDA in 2050 could be at risk due to the physical effects of climate change. Meanwhile, rapid advances in AI, quantum computing, new energy sources, and other technologies will widen the gap between leading and lagging companies.

 

Leaders face a difficult task: staying the course without limiting their vision. The challenge today is to achieve wins despite uncertainty. The challenge tomorrow is to transform those wins into a sustained competitive advantage.

 

This information has been prepared by OUR EDITORIAL STAFF