Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Every now and then, an idea comes up in leadership conversations. That sounds collaborative, sounds modern. It sounds like it might make things easier at the top, but when you really think it through, it does the opposite.
[00:00:14] A dual CEO model is one of those ideas, and while there are a handful of organizations that have made it work in almost every real world situation I've seen, especially in mid sized organizations, it introduces more risk, more confusion, and more politics than it solves.
[00:00:33] So today I want to explore a simple question.
[00:00:37] Should you ever have two CEOs? And if you're considering it, why might it actually make leading the business harder than it needs to be? You're listening to why your business isn't growing and how to fix it the Business Growth Podcast for business owners and leaders who want to scale their business, lift team performance and sharpen leadership without working 60 hour weeks hey, I'm Brendan Rogers, Founder of Leader by Design and I help business owners and leaders build self managing teams so they can scale their business, lift team performance and sharpen leadership without working 60 hour weeks.
[00:01:13] This episode was inspired by a recent conversation I had with a senior leader about the idea of introducing a dual CEO structure. And it got me thinking because this question comes up more often than people realize, often under a partnership.
[00:01:29] So let's talk about it properly.
[00:01:31] Let's imagine this scenario. You're a business owner, a board member or a senior leader and someone raises the idea of a co CEO role.
[00:01:41] The pitch usually sounds something like we've got too much on one person, we want to leverage different strengths.
[00:01:51] This will increase capacity and collaboration.
[00:01:54] And on the surface it sounds pretty reasonable.
[00:01:57] But leadership decisions shouldn't be made on surface logic alone. They need to be made on clarity, evidence and long term impact, especially on culture and execution. So let's go and unpack both sides of it.
[00:02:12] So let's unpack the pros. Now to be fair, there are some theoretical upsides if the design is extremely deliberate. And in the best case scenario, a co CEO model could offer complementary strengths. So one externally focused and one operational could be shared load in emotionally heavy roles, a built in sounding board at the top, or a symbolic commitment to collaboration.
[00:02:37] And yes, in a very small number of large complex organizations with mature governance, this has worked before.
[00:02:45] But here's the key point.
[00:02:47] Those organizations didn't stumble into CO CEOs, they engineered it carefully and paid a high coordination cost to do it. Most organizations aren't built for that level of complexity.
[00:03:03] Now let's chat about what actually happens most of the time. The first thing is clarity disappears.
[00:03:10] Two CEOs almost always creates confusion around the place. Who decides who, who owns what and who is ultimately accountable.
[00:03:20] Execution slows because people wait, hedge or escalate unnecessarily.
[00:03:27] The second thing, politics increases. This is the part that most people don't like talking about.
[00:03:34] When there's two leaders at the top, people naturally align themselves. Not always consciously, but it happens.
[00:03:41] Factions form, loyalties split and psychological safety drops.
[00:03:48] And if the idea of a co CEO role benefits one person more than others, even subtly, that risk multiplies.
[00:03:56] You don't need bad intent for politics to emerge. You just need misaligned incentives.
[00:04:03] The third con is external confusion.
[00:04:07] Clients, partners, funders, regulators, they all want to know one thing.
[00:04:13] Who speaks for the organization.
[00:04:16] Two voices at the top often creates mixed messages, even when both leaders are competent and well intentioned.
[00:04:24] And fourth, and I think this is the biggest question of all, why make leading the business harder than what it needs to be?
[00:04:33] Leadership is already tough and complex, growth is already demanding and culture already needs constant attention.
[00:04:41] So why add structural friction at the very top?
[00:04:45] So I want to be very, very clear about my personal position.
[00:04:49] I'm strongly against co CEO models in almost all situations.
[00:04:54] Not because collaboration is bad, but because clarity is absolutely essential.
[00:05:00] If the concerns around capability. My view is simple.
[00:05:05] Support the CEO with coaching.
[00:05:07] You can strengthen the executive team. Or appoint a single CEO. Or appoint a single CEO who already has the skills, behaviours and experience that the role requires.
[00:05:19] Splitting accountability is not a substitute for leadership capability.
[00:05:24] Structure should support leadership, not compensate for its absence. I want to relate this back to my own high impact leader ecosystem.
[00:05:33] This is where this topic really connects to the high impact leader ecosystem.
[00:05:38] When I work with leaders, everything comes back to two things. Clarity and alignment. Let's look through the lens of leading the business.
[00:05:47] A single accountable CEO provides clear strategic direction, faster decision making and stronger execution rhythm.
[00:05:57] Two CEOs introduce negotiation where decisiveness is needed.
[00:06:03] If you look at it through the lens of leading the people, teams perform best when direction is consistent, standards are clear and behavior is modeled. From the top. Dual leadership will often create mixed signals, even unintentionally. And if you look at it through the lens of my impact triangle, think about the three sides you've got. You the leader, them the team and it the business.
[00:06:29] From the leader perspective, accountability must be unmistakable.
[00:06:34] From the team perspective, clarity builds trust and performance.
[00:06:39] And from the business perspective, predictability comes from aligned leadership. And anything at all that blurs one side of the triangle will weaken the whole system and let's look at it from the people operating system perspective. The first pillar is perceive and self awareness matters, including knowing when structure is masking a deeper issue, and the other pillar is evaluate. Good decisions reduce complexity, they don't add to it. So high impact leadership is about simplifying what matters, not complicating it. So what does this actually mean for you? Well, if you're listening to this and someone has suggested a co CEO role, or you're feeling stretched at the top, or you're trying to solve a leadership capability gap, pause before you change the structure.
[00:07:29] Ask these questions.
[00:07:31] Is this really about capacity or capability?
[00:07:35] Are we solving a people issue with a structural fix?
[00:07:39] And are we making leadership clearer or messier?
[00:07:43] In almost every case I've seen, one strong CEO beats two compromised CEOs.
[00:07:52] Now if you want to stop overcomplicating leadership, if you want to eliminate blind spots that quietly damage performance, and if you want to build a leadership structure that actually supports growth, then I'd love to help you.
[00:08:05] You can book a call to explore how the High Impact Leader Club helps business owners and leaders build the capability that most systems never teach. You can go to Leader by Design or you can also find the link in the show notes and you've been listening to why your business isn't growing and how to fix it. The Business Growth podcast for business owners and leaders who want to scale their business, lift team performance and sharpen leadership without working 60 hour weeks. If today's episode resonated, follow the show, share it with someone who needs to hear it. And remember success that Scales is built by design.
[00:08:44] Grow yourself, Grow your team, grow your business. Now go lead with impact.
