The argument for a single heroic chief is tidy: one person to reward if things go well and one to replace if they do not. The record at the very top, however, is not as simple. Co-CEO arrangements are rare and scarred by visible failures such as at Chipotle, SAP, and Research In Motion, which is why many directors dismiss shared power on sight. Yet a study of 87 companies led by co-CEOs suggests the model is more viable than its reputation, even if it remains uncommon among roughly 2,200 firms in the S&P 1200 and Russell 1000 between 1996 and 2020 (Feigen, Jenkins and Warendh, 2022). The debate persists because the data on top jobs are thin. The strongest evidence sits one level down.
Two independent meta-analyses show that when leadership is shared across a team, performance and effectiveness rise. The question for boards is not whether to abandon single-point accountability, but how to translate what works in teams into a reliable approach to rotating leadership and succession at the apex.
What the research actually shows about shared power
A meta-analysis of 50 effect sizes across 3,198 teams found a positive relationship between shared leadership and team performance, with stronger effects when researchers measured influence as a network property such as density or decentralization and when the setting was a real organization rather than a classroom or lab (D'Innocenzo, Mathieu and Kukenberger, 2016). This is field-tested evidence that distributing influence within a group is associated with better results, and that how you define and observe “shared” matters.
A separate meta-analysis of 42 independent samples reached a similar conclusion and added texture. The overall correlation between shared leadership and team effectiveness was rho equals 0.34, with stronger associations in complex work. What gets shared also matters. When teams shared new-genre leadership, such as transformational or charismatic influence, the relationship with effectiveness was about rho equals 0.34, versus rho equals 0.18 for shared traditional leadership like initiating structure and consideration. Shared leadership showed unique incremental effects on team performance beyond traditional leadership measures, not merely substituting for them (Wang, Waldman and Zhang, 2014).
These are team-level findings, not CEO experiments. They do not prove that a rotating chief executive will outperform a single incumbent. They do give boards broad, externally validated priors. In complex, interdependent work, distributing influence across capable leaders is associated with stronger results, and the effect is most visible when leadership truly circulates rather than aggregates into a single figurehead.
From teams to the top: what travels and what does not
Co-CEO structures remain rare and often controversial. Among roughly 2,200 large listed companies surveyed over more than two decades, fewer than 100 adopted the model, and its track record includes prominent disappointments. Even so, the authors who examined 87 co-CEO firms argue the model is more workable than common wisdom allows, noting that two heads can bring complementary skills and resilience when the design is sound (Feigen, Jenkins and Warendh, 2022). Treat that as a prompt, not a verdict.
The meta-analytic record suggests three principles can guide rotating leadership and co-leadership without importing the failure modes that boards fear. First, make leadership a network, not a baton handoff in name only. Because network-based measures of shared leadership show stronger ties to performance, firms should use network-style diagnostics to see whether influence is actually distributed across senior leaders, not simply declared to be so (D'Innocenzo, Mathieu and Kukenberger, 2016). Second, focus shared leadership where work is complex and interdependent, which is where the benefits are largest (Wang, Waldman and Zhang, 2014). Third, define what is shared. If new-genre leadership behaviours correlate more strongly with effectiveness, then rotations and co-leads should be framed around vision, coordination, and change leadership, not just formal process stewardship (Wang, Waldman and Zhang, 2014).
A practical design for rotating leadership and succession
Boards do not need to start with a perpetual co-CEO arrangement. They can run time-boxed rotations that turn succession from a one-off event into a managed process.
- Carve domains deliberately. Split authority by clear outcomes, such as customer growth and operational resilience, and list the few decisions that require joint signatures. Everything else is owned by the rotating lead.
- Set a public calendar. Define six to twelve month rotations for an executive chair or lead operator role so that accountability is time bound and visible.
- Publish decision rights and conflict resolution rules. When co-leads disagree, specify who breaks ties and how, before the project starts. Keep the list of truly joint calls short.
- Prepare and audit handoffs. Use short written briefs for each rotation that include the metrics, risks, and open decisions that will change hands. This makes the circulation of leadership concrete rather than symbolic.
- Measure whether leadership is actually shared. Use periodic surveys or influence-mapping to gauge who is sought out for advice and decisions. Network-style indicators of density or decentralization are more sensitive to real patterns of shared leadership than simple aggregates, which aligns with the stronger effects observed in the research (D'Innocenzo, Mathieu and Kukenberger, 2016).
- Match rotations to complexity. Apply rotating leadership first where work is most complex, which is where the evidence suggests shared leadership yields greater gains (Wang, Waldman and Zhang, 2014).
For firms willing to pilot co-leads at the top, start small. Use a defined period with explicit scope, pre-agreed exit ramps, and board oversight. The point is not to prove a doctrine. It is to test whether complementary leaders, working to clear rules, can outperform a solo chief in a given context. The study of 87 co-CEO firms indicates the arrangement is feasible in practice, albeit unusual and hardly risk free, and it warns that execution under pressure is where failures often show up (Feigen, Jenkins and Warendh, 2022).
The succession payoff
Succession is often treated as the riskiest vote a board will ever take. Rotating leadership reduces that risk by building a bench of leaders who have already held the top accountabilities with real stakes. The meta-analytic evidence does not tell directors to anoint permanent duos. It does say that distributing influence correlates with better results, and that the returns are higher when the problem is complex. That is precisely the terrain most large companies now face. Start with time-bound rotations and explicit design. Measure whether influence is truly shared. If the results are stronger, persist. If not, shut the pilot down. In either case, succession ceases to be a cliff and becomes a capability.
Sources
- D'Innocenzo, Mathieu and Kukenberger (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Different Forms of Shared Leadership–Team Performance Relations. Finds a positive shared leadership–performance relationship across 3,198 teams, stronger with network-based measures and in field settings, supporting the case for intentional distribution of influence. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0149206314525205
- Wang, Waldman and Zhang (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team effectiveness. Shows an overall rho of 0.34 between shared leadership and team effectiveness, stronger in complex work and for new-genre leadership, implying where and what to share matters for results. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24188392/
- Feigen, Jenkins and Warendh (2022). Is It Time to Consider Co-CEOs? Reports a study of 87 co-CEO firms, notes the arrangement is rare and includes notable failures, yet argues co-leadership can be viable when well designed, informing cautious pilots at the top. https://hbr.org/2022/07/is-it-time-to-consider-co-ceos