Why more CEOs are sharing the top job: the case for (and against) co-CEOs

/ Technology / By

Summary: A small but growing number of companies are experimenting with co-CEO leadership structures—splitting the top job between two people. Supporters say it reduces hubris, shares the workload, and lets leaders specialise. Critics say it can create confusion, power struggles, and unclear accountability.

This is not just a corporate curiosity. It reflects a world where “the CEO job” has expanded: faster change, more public scrutiny, more regulatory complexity, and more burnout.

What’s driving the co-CEO trend

The BBC report highlights:

  • Co-CEOs can make better decisions by combining perspectives (“two brains rather than one”).
  • It can reduce the burden and allow time off that sole CEOs rarely take.
  • It lets leaders divide responsibilities by strengths (product/marketing vs finance/regulatory, for example).
  • Data suggests co-CEO arrangements have increased among large US public companies (still rare, but growing).

The report also notes:

  • Some high-profile co-CEO experiments ended after a short period (suggesting the model is fragile).

Why the CEO role is getting harder

The modern CEO job now includes:

  • strategy
  • culture
  • crisis management
  • media presence
  • regulatory navigation
  • cybersecurity and tech risk

That’s a lot for one person.

Splitting the role is an attempt to match organisational complexity with leadership bandwidth.

The upside: specialisation without hierarchy

Co-CEOs can divide work in a way that mirrors how companies actually operate:

  • one focuses on product and growth
  • the other focuses on operations, compliance, finance

This can work especially well when:

  • the leaders are complementary
  • they trust each other
  • they share a vision

The BBC’s example of Board Intelligence is useful because it shows a long-running partnership rather than a short-term experiment.

The downside: accountability gets blurry

The main risk is simple:

  • when something goes wrong, who is responsible?

Boards and executives often want a single point of accountability.

If teams aren’t sure who decides:

  • decisions slow down
  • politics increases
  • conflicting instructions appear

That’s why co-CEO models often fail when:

  • leaders didn’t already work together
  • the company is highly complex
  • ego and power dynamics surface

Co-CEO as succession planning

The BBC notes co-CEO setups can be used to test future leaders.

This makes sense in a world where boards say the pipeline of “ready-now” CEOs has shrunk.

But it also reveals a potential weakness:

  • the co-CEO model may be transitional by design

That can destabilise the partnership if both people assume they’ll end up as the sole CEO.

The family-life and retention angle

One of the most concrete benefits in the report is how co-CEO structures enabled:

  • maternity/paternity leave
  • time for major life events

This matters because:

  • leadership roles filter out people with caregiving responsibilities
  • companies lose talent when top roles are incompatible with life

Co-CEO models are one attempt to widen who can realistically hold top responsibility.

What to watch

  1. Clear division of responsibilities (written, explicit).
  2. Communication discipline to avoid mixed signals.
  3. Board support: boards must be aligned with the model.
  4. Time horizon: is it permanent or a succession bridge?
  5. Culture fit: co-leadership needs trust, not rivalry.

Bottom line

Co-CEOs are not a universal solution. They’re a response to a world where the CEO role has become too broad, too exposed, and too demanding for one human in many contexts.

When it works, it can reduce hubris and improve resilience. When it fails, it fails loudly—through confusion and power struggles.

Sources

n English