"When Two (or More) Heads are Better than One: The Promise and Pitfalls of Shared Leadership"
California Management Review
Summer 2002, pp. 65-83
Leadership has usually been assumed to be a one-person undertaking. The authors argue, however, that the trend over the last half century has been away from concentration of power in one person and toward expanding the capacity for leadership at top levels of corporations. In the past, corporations were generally run by a President, with a Vice President available if the President became incapacitated. Since the end of World War II, corporations have tried numerous combinations of such roles as Chairman, CEO, COO, and CFO.
The article presents an interesting table which lists all the major corporations that have had co-leaders since the 1970's. Those labeled by the authors as "effective" were Schwab, Microsoft, Boeing, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Goldman Sachs (1970s and 1980s), Disney (1980s), Berkshire Hathaway, ABB, Ford, Arco, Asda, TIAA_CREF, and Motorola. Those labeled as ineffective were: Citigroup, Apple, Morgan Stanley, Patagonia, Goldman Sachs (1990s), Disney (1990s), and Oracle.
The odds of success with co-leadership seem to go up when the leaders play different and complementary roles. Co-leaders should also be selected for their "chemistry" with each other. When working together, the individuals involved "should be clear about their roles and honest with themselves and each other about their respective contributions and needs for acknowledgement and power."
In surveying over 3,000 managers in a dozen global companies, the authors concluded that "many of the key tasks and responsibilities of leadership were institutionalized in the systems, practices, and cultures of the organization. Without the presence of a high-profile leader (or 'superiors' goading or exhorting them on), people at all levels of the organization (a) acted more like owners and entrepreneurs than employees or hired hands, (b) took initiative to solve problems and to act, in general, with a sense of urgency, (c) willingly accepted accountability for meeting commitments, and for living the values of the organization, and (d) created, maintained, and adhered to systems and procedures designed to measure and reward the above behaviors." The authors conclude that the reasons for success are often to be found in such key organizational variables as systems, structures, and policies - factors that are not included in research based on a solo leadership model.
Back to top of page
