Matchmaking and soulmates might be the stuff of Hallmark cards and fairy tales – especially as the 14^th and St Valentines draws closer, but fateful partnerships leading to a Happily Ever After isn’t always the stuff of Disney film. Especially when the partnerships are happening in the business boardroom rather than a castle ballroom. 

In fact, Disney chairman James Gorman might have just used cupid’s arrow to fracture the potential of a perfect partnership to grow in his own HQ.

Speaking publicly on the appointments and make-up of his board (the naming of Josh D’Amaro as sole chief executive and Dana Walden as President and Chief Creative Officer) he seemed to dismiss the value of a co-CEO partnership very quickly.

“We considered everything because we felt this was the time we had to get this right, and I was absolutely committed to being thorough, being open-minded,” he shared in an interview with Deadline, before going on to say “We considered co-CEOs… I wouldn’t say we considered co-CEOs for very long at all, to be really blunt. I think that was probably the easiest thing to take off the table.” 

Is it time to consider Co-CEOs?  

Once seen as somewhat unconventional, the co-CEO model has been gaining traction across industries-from Goldman Sachs in finance to Oracle in technology and Netflix in the entertainment sector. It even has a solid footing in the start-up sector as fledgeling ventures operate from a collective rather than singular leadership model. 

Why split the top job? There’s plenty of compelling reasons. Increasing the share of voice at the top enhances the capacity for collaboration and innovation, a richer seam of skills and perspectives to mine from for decision making and, conversely, stability as there’s always someone to pick up the slack. 

And there’s always the advantage of better performance. A 2024 article in Forbes delved into research published by Harvard Business Review around the effectiveness of co-CEO arrangements and identified that the “co-CEO average annual shareholder return was 9.5%, “significantly better than the average of 6.9%”, and approximately 60% co-CEO led companies “outperformed”.

But there are, of course, criticisms of the model too. A duplication of role and expenditure, the potential for unclear or divided leadership, in-fighting and competition, driven by ambition and insecurity, and as a result divided interests and plenty of inefficiency. 

Any marriage counsellor (or, let’s face it, LLM you turn to for answers) will remind couples in conflict that a harmonious partnership doesn’t come without putting in the work, and life as a co-CEO is no different. It requires mutual respect, clear communication, and a willingness to navigate conflict constructively together.  

And, sometimes, despite the best of efforts and intentions, relationships can break down. Just like romantic partnerships, when co-CEO relationships go wrong, the fallout can be spectacular not just for the partnership, but for the wider family too. 

So how can co-CEOs make sure they can keep those warm and fuzzy feelings alive?  

Lesson 1: Consider, do you really want a partner? 

Just like you shouldn’t rush into a romantic relationship for the wrong reasons, not every organisation needs-or should have-co-CEOs.  

Research from faculty at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business and the Rochester Institute of Technology, finds that the co-CEO model works best in specific contexts; when a company requires diverse skillsets across different verticals or geographies, when complementary leadership styles are essential for growth (pairing task-oriented leaders with people-oriented ones, or matching visionaries with those who thrive on execution), or during merger scenarios, where it is vital to retain staff of equal ability to benefit the greater good.  

Netflix’s structure offers a valuable example of how these contexts can work in reality. In 2020, Reed Hastings (who himself was very well acquainted with the realities of holding a “co” role having co-founded the service with Marc Randolph some 20 years prior) elected to promote Chief Content officer Ted Sarandos to serve alongside him as co-CEO. His aim was to meld together two different yet very necessary skillsets in the CEO function to better support Netflix’s ambitious growth plans.  

Their roles within the partnership were clearly defined. Sarandos had deep expertise in content and communications, while Hastings had the product and technology focus. Under their dual leadership, Netflix entered a new era of creating original content. The model proved so successful that when Hastings stepped down two and a half years later, he took the same approach in hiring his replacement. Greg Peters, formerly Netflix’s Chief Product Officer, held the same skillset as Hastings and could continue his leadership in product, tech and operations.  

By combining two capable, but diversely talented leaders in one function, companies are better able to ensure all their strategic goals are met and even exceed them. 

The research offers a clear lesson for practitioners, before adopting a co-CEO structure, examine your reasons for doing so. Are you responding to genuine organisational complexities that demand a wide-ranging set of expertise from the top? Or are you simply avoiding a difficult succession decision by trying to keep everyone happy? Whilst the former can be transformative; the latter is more likely to be a recipe for dysfunction. 

Lesson 2: Don’t forget your support system  

Creating a co-CEO role isn’t as simple as just putting two well-qualified people together and expecting them to flourish. Power struggles are a very real occurrence at any level of an organisation, and the c-suite is no exception. If a co-CEO partnership is formed without taking the care to also establish a relationship, it’s unsurprising when tensions and frictions rise. 

Lindred Greer is a Professor in Management and Organisations. Research she undertook during her time on the faculty at Stanford explores the power dynamics at play in high-powered teams. She found that co-leadership arrangements will often struggle if two ambitious individuals are unable to interact without becoming defensive and paranoid about each other’s intentions. Holding on to information and being overly cautious about what they share and how they act doesn’t just create interpersonal tension, it has a ripple effect, actively damaging wider relations and even organisational performance. 

CEOs are naturally ambitious by nature, so how can organisations ensure that co-CEOs do not become distracted by in-fighting and focus their efforts on the greater good?  

The study by Haskayne and Rochester advocates for developing robust governance structures within organisations to help keep the relationship harmonious. Just like in our personal lives, having a support system is invaluable for wellbeing. 

The research identifies three critical governance elements that successful co-CEO arrangements share; clear boundaries, executive oversight, and pre-agreed formal conflict resolution processes. 

Tech company Oracle, (whose co-CEO structure was explored by IMD Business School professor Michael D. Watkins) has all three in place. When co-founder (and currently the world’s third richest person according to Forbes) Larry Ellison stepped back in the same manner a Netflix’s Hastings and took on a chairman role instead, he provided co-CEOs Safra Catz and Mark Hurd with a removed third party to oversee their work and decision making. Ellison’s continued presence not only provided the means to assess and resolve grievances it also provided accountability, preventing the likelihood of power struggles from derailing the partnership.  

Organisations should, the research suggests, put the infrastructure in place before the roles are established. By defining who has final say in which domains, what the complaints procedure should entail and establishing a neutral third party to regularly check in and settle any quibbles, organisations can snuff out trouble before it erupts.  

Lesson 3: Friendship is the best foundation 

How often have we heard the advice that the best relationships are built first on friendship? There’s some truth to it. A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, revealed that married couples saw their spouse as their best friend reported significantly higher rates of life satisfaction than less friendly couples, and enjoyed twice as much additional life satisfaction. 

In the business world, the same realities ring true. Co-CEO partnerships are, the research shows, significantly more likely to succeed when the leaders have either a history of effective collaboration with others or a strong pre-existing relationship with each other.  

Research by Maria Arnone and Stephen Stumpf at Villanova School of Business, published in Strategy & Leadership, found that successful co-leadership arrangements often shared a common characteristic: the duo had worked together (and worked together well) at an earlier stage in their careers. Their shared history had allowed them to develop trust, solid communication, and complementary working styles, that enabled them to overcome the typical challenges unfamiliar co-CEOs faced when attempting to work together.

Going back to the study from Haskayne and Rochester’s faculties, the researchers used the example of Salesforce’s leadership structure to evidence how friendship can make or break a relationship. The partnership between Co-CEOs Marc Benioff and Keith Block was successful, the researchers note, largely because of their close friendship and compatibility. Having this foundation in place enabled transparent communication, mutual respect, trust and better performance as a result. In contrast, the subsequent pairing of Benioff and Bret Taylor (who replaced Block after his departure) lasted a mere 18 months. The researchers suggest the lower familiarity and the imbalanced power dynamics with Benioff holding greater influence internally to have contributed to the partnership’s demise. 

For executives, when considering co-CEO appointments, it pays to look beyond qualifications and capabilities to also consider compatibility with their potential partner. Shared (positive!) experiences can help to deflate egos and ensure effective collaboration.  

Lesson 4: Have you considered couples’ counselling?  

It’s all too easy to get wrapped up in love and forget the existence of the world around you. Or even to turn a deaf ear to well-meaning friends and family who might want to offer words of caution or care. When formerly happy couples look back on a failed relationship, it’s often to realise that a trail of little things that were swept under the rug became, over time, a much bigger thing that ultimately became too big to overcome.  

Similarly, even the strongest of co-CEOs can find their relationship drifting off course unless they take the time to take a reality check. 

In a recent article published by Harvard Business Review, Anand Joshi (founder of Future Proven and former Goldman Sachs managing director) warns that without regular feedback, co-CEO partnerships can suffer “calibration drift”, a series of small misalignments in priorities, communication styles, or decision-making approaches that compound over time.  

Like a plane that’s slightly off course, the longer these misalignments go uncorrected, the farther the partnership veers from its intended trajectory. 

How can couples get back on track? Joshi advises that part of the recipe for co-CEO success is to build regular, third party-led “health checks” into their working lives to stay in check with the wider organisation and with each other. Such opportunities to pause, reflect and check in with each other under a careful third-party eye can help to identify and adjust potentially challenging behaviours and scenarios before they grow into unresolvable rifts. 

External facilitation is critical. This could take the form of regular executive coaching sessions, board-led 360-degree feedback processes, or the appointment of an external trusted advisor who can identify and raise issues the co-CEOs themselves might not recognise or are reluctant to put voice to. 

Professor Watkins at IMD Business School reinforces this point. Co-CEO’s need more that a shared commitment to succeed and the skills to make it happen. Structured processes for maintaining their alignment and working through tensions, no matter how small, is vital for business evolution.  

Avoiding heartbreak 

It’s rare that a relationship ends amicably. Whilst in your personal life it might involve tears, divvying up your shared assets (who gets custody of the dog?!), and probably a lot of bad-mouthing of each other to sympathetic, patient friends, in your business life the repercussions can be difficult to come back from. 

Aside of considering the effect of the fallout on the wider organisation (strategic paralysis, crisis meetings and the rumbling rumour mill in the face of organisational confusion, the distraction from other organisational priorities and the possibility of losing more talent), there’s also the reputational damage to consider. Can companies survive when the leadership model looks shaky at best? 

For businesses considering a co-CEO structure, whilst the evidence shows that such models can work well, the key decision to be made is whether they are prepared to make the investment in ensuring the relationship can thrive.  

This means going in prepared. Blind dates might be exciting, but they rarely work out long term.

By, Kerry Ruffle

Interested in this topic? You might also like this…