When Two Leaders Are Better Than One

This week, Oracle appointed co-CEOs to lead the company into the AI age: Clay Magouyrk, who’d most recently led cloud infrastructure and AI training operations, and Mike Sicilia, who’d been overseeing industry application suites, including AI agents. (They replaced Safra Katz, who was herself a co-CEO with Mark Hurd until he resigned for health reasons before succumbing to cancer.) The rationale for the new dual leadership structure is complementary business expertise and shared commitment to AI. But it will take more than that for Magouyrk and Sicilia to work well together. While some organizations have flourished with co-CEOs — think of Netflix under Ted Sarandos and Reed Hastings and now Sarandos and Greg Peters — others have struggled. In 2020, for example, SAP dismantled its dual CEO structure after just six months, citing the need for “clearer accountability and faster decision-making“ during the turbulent times of the pandemic. So why do some co-leadership arrangements thrive while others collapse under pressure? The answer lies in attitudes and execution, not concept. Co-leadership isn’t inherently good or bad. It’s a tool that amplifies whatever design choices, intent, and discipline you bring to it. The Case for Co-Leadership The traditional single-CEO model emerged when business moved more slowly and competitive boundaries were clearer. Today’s environment demands a different calculus. Consider what we ask of modern chief executives: master digital transformation while managing stakeholder expectations, drive innovation while ensuring operational excellence, navigate global complexity while maintaining local relevance—all in real time. This superhuman job description reflects genuine business complexity that often exceeds individual bandwidth. Co-leadership addresses this through deliberate division of cognitive and operational load. At Netflix, when Hastings focused on technology and corporate strategy while Sarandos owned content and global expansion, they weren’t just sharing work. They were leveraging expertise in complementary domains. The performance data support this approach. A study of 87 public companies led by co-CEOs between 1996 and 2020 found that they generated average annual shareholder returns of 9.5% while the duo was in charge, better than the 6.9% average for each firm’s relevant index. Nearly 60% outperformed, and the average co-CEO tenure was about five years, on par with solo CEOs. When It Creates Value The most effective co-leadership arrangements—at the CEO level or further down the hierarchy—share three common characteristics that reduce potential coordination costs and amplify competitive advantages. Complementary expertise at scale Successful duos bring fundamentally different but synergistic capabilities. Intel’s “two-in-a-box” model consistently paired technical leaders with commercial ones, allowing the company to maintain engineering excellence while driving market expansion. At Goldman Sachs in the 2000s, Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried served as co-presidents and co-COOs, with Cohn overseeing trading and asset management and Winkelried leading the investment and merchant banking business. Enhanced organizational resilience During the 2008 financial crisis, Goldman leveraged its co-leadership structure further, allowing CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Cohn to simultaneously manage crisis response and strategic positioning. While Blankfein handled regulatory relationships and public communications, Cohn drove internal restructuring and client retention. This distributed approach prevented bottlenecks when speed mattered most. Real-time decision quality Effective co-leaders can act as integrated thinking partners, challenging assumptions and rigorously stress-testing decisions before they reach the organization. This peer-level dialogue—often absent in traditional hierarchies—can help prevent costly strategic missteps while speeding up execution. Smooth succession planning Co-leadership creates natural succession pathways that reduce organizational disruption when leadership transitions occur. If one executive departs, the remaining partner provides continuity and institutional knowledge while onboarding new talent. At lower levels, co-leaders ensure there are multiple candidates preparing to move up to the next role. Potential Failure Modes Co-leadership’s advantages can quickly become liabilities when alignment and execution falter. The most common failure patterns include: Decision ambiguity When responsibilities overlap or decision rights remain unclear, organizations can experience leadership paralysis. Teams begin forum-shopping for favorable answers, progress stalls, and accountability erodes. SAP’s experience illustrates this dynamic: As rapid response became essential, unclear authority created delays that the structure was meant to prevent. Stakeholder confusion External parties—investors, regulators, major partners—prefer single points of contact for critical issues. When co-leaders provide conflicting messages or appear misaligned, those stakeholders lose confidence in the organization. This is particularly damaging during crisis periods when people need clarity above all else. Internal fragmentation Without careful management, shared roles can lead to competing power centers. Employees may align themselves with one leader over another, creating destructive internal dynamics and undermining the collaborative culture that co-leadership is intended to foster. Seven Principles for Success In my work establishing dual leadership structures across industries and organizational levels, including a current engagement with senior leaders at a major healthcare group, I’ve identified seven critical principles that co-CEOs can follow to set themselves up for success: 1. Create a “leadership charter.” Successful co-leaders jointly develop on a document that defines decision domains, escalation processes, and communication protocols. This isn’t bureaucracy; it’s the constitutional foundation that prevents confusion when the stakes are high. 2. Divide by expertise not convenience. Assign responsibilities based on complementary strengths and natural expertise rather than organizational convenience. Overlap should be minimal and explicitly managed to prevent decision paralysis. 3. Establish a unified external interface. Stakeholders should have clear points of contact for specific issues. One leader might handle corporate strategy and investor relations, while another focuses on operations and customer relationships, preventing mixed messaging while leveraging each leader’s expertise. 4. Build structure to drive alignment. Regular private meetings, shared decision logs, and joint communication protocols ensure internal consistency. Many successful pairs implement a “24-hour rule”: Resolve disagreements privately within a day and then present unified positions to the organization. 5. Design clear conflict-resolution mechanisms. Disagreement is inevitable; deadlock is not. Establish transparent tie-breaking processes, whether through rotating final authority, escalation to the board, or predetermined decision criteria. 6. Plan for evolution. Include explicit exit strategies from the start. This isn’t pessimism. It’s recognition that organizational needs evolve, and leadership structures should adapt accordingly. 7. Invest in the partnership. Create shared leadership development programs, joint coaching, and regular relationship health checks. Engage boards early in charter development to ensure alignment and prevent them from becoming unwitting arbiters of disputes. Implement systems that make decision-making processes visible throughout the organization to reduce speculation and build confidence in the model. The Future of Co-Leadership As business complexity continues to increase, we’ll see more experimentation with leadership models. Technology companies already employ various forms of shared roles at senior levels, recognizing that no individual can master all necessary domains. Such arrangements should be deliberate choices, not compromises. Organizations must evaluate whether their strategic challenges require complementary attributes that surpass a single executive’s capacity. When the answer is no, or when execution falters, traditional single-leader models remain effective. But when the answer is yes, and when you treat co-leadership as a complex organizational capability that requires deliberate design and disciplined implementation, it offers a sustainable competitive advantage. For executives considering this path, the question isn’t whether sharing roles can work. The evidence shows it can. The question is whether you and your partner are prepared to do the systematic work required to succeed. In an era demanding both bold vision and flawless execution, the leaders who figure out how to work together to multiply their capabilities, rather than simply divide their time, will define the next generation of organizational growth.

When Two Leaders Are Better Than One

Summary.

Partner Center