Article
Across the globe, we are seeing a rise in Co-CEO structures, where two leaders share the chief executive title and the 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 ask themselves whether two CEOs can be better than one.
The CEO role has always been singular. One person, one ultimate decision-maker. But, over time, the top job has become exponentially harder to perform alone. CEOs are now expected to steer AI transformation agendas, manage rising stakeholder expectations, and anticipate geopolitical disruption, all while defending margins. It is, in effect, a superhuman job description.
Our H2 2025 Global Leadership Monitor reflects the growing complexity of the role, revealing a 10% decline in how prepared CEOs are to manage tech change between H1 2025 and H2 2025. Only 40% now say they are ready to face the disruption brought by AI. And our data also found that CEOs are becoming less prepared to manage the availability of talent, which has fallen from 48% to 37% in the past six months.
As another potential consequence of these increasing demands, our research found that CEO tenure has fallen to a record low of 7.2 years between Q1 and Q3 2025. In this context, the move toward Co-leadership could be a way to divide complexity, share judgment, and prevent burnout at the very top.
Today, more boards appear to be using the Co-CEO model to align leadership structure with strategy, scale, and pace of change. And the data suggests it can be incredibly effective. A Harvard Business Review analysis of 87 public companies led by Co-CEOs found that these firms delivered 9.5% average annual shareholder returns, compared to 6.9% for their benchmark indices. Nearly 60% outperformed their peers, and the average tenure of around five years matched that of single CEOs.
A Co-CEO structure also allows organizations to match breadth with depth: one leader may bring a global, strategic, and stakeholder-facing orientation, while the other offers deep technical, operational, or product expertise. Together, they can create a more complete leadership profile.
In this way, the model is not only about dividing responsibility but also about de-risking continuity, giving boards a mechanism to evolve leadership without unsettling performance.
In some cases, boards are turning to the Co-CEO model as a structured transition mechanism. For example, when a first-time or newly appointed CEO is paired with 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-CEO arrangements to smooth the handover between entrepreneurial and professional leadership. Co-CEO structures can also be effective in merger scenarios, where two Co-CEOs can allow both legacy organizations to feel represented and reduce internal politics.
While sharing the corner office can bring balance and breadth, it also carries governance risks that boards must anticipate.
Ambiguity of decision-making is one of the biggest risks. When responsibility is shared without precise boundaries, accountability can dissipate. Strategic choices may stall, or, be executed in parallel without coordination. Boards should be alert to the early signs of this playing out—delayed decisions, conflicting communications, or unclear ownership of outcomes—all of which can erode confidence across the organization.
Tension between Co-CEOs is also inevitable. Each Co-CEO will likely have different leadership styles and ways of communicating—but it’s critical they appear unified to their employees and externally. When this tension isn’t handled effectively, it can pull the organization in two very separate directions.
A model for the future?Shared leadership won’t suit every organization. It requires chemistry, clarity, and the right governance. But the conditions driving its rise—accelerating change, heightened scrutiny, and increasing role complexity—are not going away. Boards are right to ask whether one leader can realistically embody every capability required of a modern enterprise. For some, the answer may increasingly be that they don’t have to. As leadership demands continue to intensify, shared leadership models may become less the exception and more an evolution. |
Laura Mantoura is a member of Russell Reynolds Associates’ Board and CEO Advisory practice. She is based in New York.
Emma Combe leads Russell Reynolds Associates' UK Board Practice and host of Leadership Lounge. She is based in London.
en
Login
