Leading is a complex job today. Anyone who runs an organisation or a team is no longer simply „the boss”: you decide, you shape, you develop, you guide change, you mediate conflict, you enable others to do their best — often all on the same day. And the higher you climb, the lonelier the role becomes. The circle of people you can speak to openly and as an equal keeps shrinking. Add economic pressure to the mix, and the pressure on the person at the top rises right along with it.
What if you could share this demanding work — two people, on equal footing, with joint responsibility? That is exactly the idea behind co-leadership. For some it is a model of the future that relieves the burden and improves the quality of leadership; for others it is a construct that only creates extra problems. The IAP podcast Psychologie konkret, produced by the ZHAW, devoted a whole episode to the topic. Host Ellen Gundrum talks with organisational psychologist Dr. Michael Burtscher, who researches leadership and teamwork at the ZHAW, leads an Innosuisse project on how best to staff co-leadership roles — and has worked in a co-leadership arrangement himself. I have summarised the episode’s central ideas and added my own perspective as a coach.
Why co-leadership is becoming more common
The impression that shared leadership is on the rise is not deceptive. Burtscher points to the numbers: an international study from 2023 found that in almost half of the companies surveyed, co-leadership is possible and actually exists. In Switzerland, too, the trend can be traced through hard data — for example in the research on topsharing, the particular variant in which two people share a leadership position on a part-time basis. Over roughly the past ten years there has been a marked increase.
What is striking is who now relies on such models: it is no longer only agile start-ups, but also large traditional companies. Burtscher cites the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) as an example. Shared leadership has well and truly arrived in the mainstream.
A remedy for the skills shortage — not a contradiction
At first glance it sounds paradoxical: we feel the skills shortage, and now two people are sharing a single job? Burtscher turns the argument on its head. When people reach a certain career stage, it often coincides with starting a family. Women and men alike then think harder about how to reconcile work and private life. Where an organisation only knows the strict model of „leadership means one person, working 100 (in practice more like 120) percent”, many well-qualified people are lost to the labour market as leaders — or leave altogether.
Co-leadership is therefore above all an opportunity: an additional model that makes leadership possible beyond the classic full-time solo act, and that keeps talent inside the company. It is a model that makes leadership responsibility compatible with a more self-determined life.
The advantages: flexibility, relief, better decisions
For the people involved, co-leadership brings more flexibility: you can divide up tasks, cover for one another, and not everyone has to sit in every meeting. That makes it easier to arrange working hours and to balance work and family. In knowledge and expert organisations there is a further benefit: if you share leadership, you can keep one foot in your specialist field rather than disappearing entirely into management work.
For the organisation, employer attractiveness rises — and depending on how it is set up, the company gets „two for the price of one”: two people with different competencies and experiences, which can have a positive effect on leadership effectiveness. That shared leadership can improve a team’s performance is also well documented scientifically: a meta-analysis in the Journal of Management shows a positive relationship between „shared leadership” and team performance.
Perhaps the most important advantage is one Burtscher describes from his own experience: relief through shared responsibility. There are issues you can discuss neither with your staff nor with your own superior. Having someone on the same level — a sparring partner with whom you can turn a decision over and back — he found to be a real gain. An additional perspective and more experience often lead to better solutions than you would have found on your own.
No sure thing: why co-leadership can also fail
As appealing as this sounds, co-leadership is neither a cure-all nor something that runs by itself. It can fail too — and the most common reason is a lack of matching on the personal level. Experts speak of interpersonal fit.
An important distinction matters to Burtscher here: matching does not mean putting two people who are as similar as possible together. You need no twins and no clones. It is about a clever mix of similarity and difference — experts distinguish between supplementary (similar) and complementary (contrasting) characteristics:
- Similar the two should be in their values, working style and leadership stance. If one person is highly detail-oriented and the other thinks in broad strokes, or if basic attitudes are far apart, it gets difficult.
- Different their professional skills and experience may — and should — be. That is precisely where a strength lies: more diversity, more angles. Two identical people would squander that potential.
Interestingly, whether a co-leadership consists of two women, two men or a mix hardly matters according to the research — for better or worse. An age gap is no problem either. What really counts is similarity in working style and leadership stance — and open, transparent, reliable communication.
What almost certainly does not work is „two alpha animals”, each convinced they alone hold the truth. Anyone who is not willing to hold back, to let another opinion stand and to make compromises is simply not suited to co-leadership.
What co-leadership needs to succeed
Several success factors can be drawn from the episode:
- A lot of communication and coordination. The effort is regularly underestimated. You feel: „I can do leadership, so can the other person, so we can do it together.” But with two leaders the need for alignment grows. Better to say something twice than to let information get lost — because an incomplete flow of information quickly leads to misunderstandings and conflict.
- A willingness to compromise. You have to be able to let go of your own opinion — for leaders used to deciding alone, often not so easy. Decisions are made together and then also defended together to the outside; half-hearted agreement followed by quiet undermining does not work.
- Appreciation and respect. You have to want the model and be convinced that the other person contributes something you do not bring yourself. Co-leadership imposed from above does not work.
- Clear roles towards the team. A consistent message to the outside is absolutely central. Internally you may — and should — argue, but once the decision is made, both appear as a unit. Otherwise you get what Burtscher wryly calls the „mum-and-dad problem”: staff who ask one leader and, if the answer does not suit them, ask the other a week later. A clear clarification of roles and tasks — who is responsible for what, what the two decide jointly — helps enormously here.
At the organisational level you need a culture that genuinely wants co-leadership (and is not just following the zeitgeist), the acceptance of the level above and of the team (both leaders must be seen as equal) — and the willingness to provide resources. Because coordination costs time. Two co-leaders working 50 percent each are doomed to fail; the necessary exchange requires an overlap. And finally, co-leadership is a development process: hardly any duo works perfectly from the start. Shared support — for instance through coaching in the first year — can make the difference.
Why women above all — and mostly middle management
Two observations from the episode are worth noting. First: co-leadership arrangements currently tend to feature more women — various studies point to roughly two thirds women, one third men. Against the backdrop of better work-life balance, that is plausible. Co-leadership can therefore also be a lever for bringing more women into leadership positions and keeping them there.
Second: topsharing is found above all in middle management. At the very top — think co-CEO — experiences are mixed. In Switzerland, Rivella runs a dual leadership; in the German-speaking world SAP tried a co-CEO constellation years ago, though without resounding success. Burtscher also recalls a historical example: when Apple paired Steve Jobs with Pepsi executive John Sculley in the 1980s, it failed spectacularly. The higher you go, the more the qualities in demand can be ones that sit badly with a readiness to share — people who expose themselves strongly. And this too matters to Burtscher: there is no right and no wrong. For some settings, such an exposed personality is exactly right — and then co-leadership may not be the fitting model.
What this means for leaders — and for coaching
One thought from the episode lingers in particular: in the end, co-leadership is relationship work. You spend about as much time with your co-leader as with your own partner. No wonder, then, that it takes interpersonal fit. Co-leadership is often viewed heavily in terms of skills, competencies and framework conditions — all of which matter. But at its core it is a relationship in which psychological factors decide: being able to communicate well, taking on the other person’s perspective, making compromises, sometimes standing behind decisions you would not have made yourself.
This is exactly where I see the connection to my own work. Much of what makes co-leadership succeed can be developed: your own communication, the way you handle control and autonomy, the ability to genuinely let another view stand. These are themes that play a central role in coaching for leaders and executives and in personal and professional coaching anyway — whether you lead as a duo or on your own. Because anyone who practises listening, bringing perspectives together and carrying compromises will, in quite different situations, become a more consensus-oriented, broader-thinking leader. You give up a piece of autonomy — and gain a sparring partner, additional insight and, as Burtscher is convinced, more balanced decisions.
Conclusion
Co-leadership widens the spectrum of how leadership can be practised. It has many advantages — flexibility, relief, work-life balance, often better decisions — and it can even help address the skills shortage and keep more women in leadership. At the same time it is neither a cure-all nor suited to every organisation and every combination of people, and certainly not a sure thing. It needs the right matching, clear communication, resources and the willingness to genuinely share responsibility. Where those conditions are met, shared leadership can be a great gain — for the leaders themselves and for the organisation.
Frequently asked questions about co-leadership
What is co-leadership?
In co-leadership, two people share a leadership position and the responsibility that comes with it on an equal footing. A particular variant is topsharing, in which both share the role part-time. Both models extend the classic picture of „one leader, full-time”.
What are the advantages of shared leadership?
More flexibility and a better balance of work and family, mutual relief through shared responsibility, two perspectives and more experience — and, as a result, often more balanced decisions. For organisations, employer attractiveness rises on top of that.
Why do co-leadership arrangements sometimes fail?
Most often because of a lack of personal fit. When values, working style and leadership stance are too far apart, or when two „alpha animals” are unwilling to hold back and compromise, the model does not work. Underestimated coordination effort and unclear external communication are typical stumbling blocks too.
What should co-leaders watch out for in dealing with the team?
Clear, consistent communication: internally you may debate, but to the outside you appear as a unit. A clear clarification of roles and tasks helps, so that everyone can see who makes which decisions — and which are made jointly.
Source
Psychologie konkret (IAP podcast of the ZHAW): „Co-Leitung: Ist Führungsverantwortung teilbar?”, a conversation between Ellen Gundrum and Dr. Michael Burtscher, published on 5 January 2026. To the episode on Apple Podcasts
More on shared leadership: Job and topsharing in Switzerland (FHNW) · Topsharing — shared leadership (HSLU) · Meta-analysis on shared leadership, Journal of Management
Note: This article is based on a conversation made available by the podcast. The transcript is protected by copyright and has deliberately not been reproduced verbatim here, but paraphrased and edited journalistically.
