A Reality Check for Nonprofit Co-Leadership

Dozens of articles have proposed co-leadership as an attractive option for nonprofits, presenting the structure as a healthier, more relational, and less isolating way to work, as well as an appealing on-ramp for chief executives of color. Sharing leadership responsibilities between more than one chief executive can help nonprofits in a variety of ways: It can reduce staff burnout and support work-life balance, expand options for navigating leadership transitions, incorporate multiple perspectives into decision-making, and make room for more racial, gender, and other diversity at the top. Many nonprofits are finding these arguments compelling. In 2023, Candid conducted a review of all public charities in their database and found that about a fifth of them—over 10,000 organizations—had a co-leadership model in place.Much less has been written about the complexities, risks, and even drawbacks of co-leadership, and about how—with these considerations in mind—boards and executives can anticipate and manage problems that may arise. And yet while co-leadership is a natural fit for some organizations and leaders, it represents a much more challenging path for others.In over two decades of work with co-led organizations—as well as employing a co-leadership model ourselves—Wellspring Consulting has encountered three primary risks that nonprofits considering a co-leadership model should be aware of:

1. Co-leaders in name only. Often, even when a nonprofit aspires to have two equal leaders, just one person is considered the “real leader” in practice, holding the majority of power and authority, and staff, board, and external partners all know it. The secondary leader is often overlooked, their efforts are undermined, and they are a chief executive in name only. Meanwhile, a board that provides equal compensation for lopsided executive contributions risks building resentment in the leader on whose shoulders the weight of the organization truly rests.
2. Making decisions can be political and slow. Without sufficient specificity on workflows and decision-making, co-led organizations can experience lower productivity, with staff experiencing confusion, frustration, and a lack of trust in their leaders. Even when leaders have laid out clear norms, the question of who makes the final call can remain murky, and reaching agreement on grey-zone issues can be time-consuming (or impossible in emergency situations that demand speed).
   When staff are unclear about who will make a decision, they may play co-leaders off one another in seeking the answer they want. As one staff member in a co-led organization put it, “So many decisions are intertwined. Something that is right programmatically may not be right financially. So as staff, you go to the leader you feel most aligned with.” Meanwhile, if too many calls are made in deliberation by the two people at the top, it can limit participation in decision-making among a wider circle of staff.
3. Co-leaders may develop irreconcilable differences. At Wellspring, we have seen gifted, deeply committed, and mission-oriented co-leaders become misaligned on fundamental questions of strategy or organizational culture, ultimately reaching a place where each leader feels unable to compromise. Disconnect on fundamental points of strategy or culture dilutes mission impact, affects staff morale, and can ultimately put a board in the difficult position of having to choose between two competing visions for the future. If different factions of board members feel more connected to one leader than the other, navigating irreconcilable differences can be particularly painful.

Read more articles on co-leadership with valuable insights from co-CEOs: “Co-Leadership as Practice for an Equitable Future” and “Co-Leadership for Bottom-Up Transformation”

It is, of course, entirely possible for nonprofits to navigate the risks of co-leadership and realize the benefits so well described in the literature. But board members and executives who are considering co-leadership should first reflect on whether co-leadership will be a good fit for them; if it is, they should devote attention to ensuring they can do it successfully, clarifying roles, authority, and decision-making protocols at the start and following through over time.

Is co-leadership a good fit for your nonprofit?

The ideal co-led organization is likely to have a few consistent characteristics:1. Ideally, leaders will play distinct and complementary roles. Nonprofits with two primary functions that rely on distinct skill sets lend themselves particularly well to co-leadership models. Theaters are a classic example. They need both artistic and business leadership to thrive and are often co-led by an artistic director and an executive director, with each leader overseeing work and decisions in their own overlapping, but largely distinct, domain. While some overlap between the roles of the two top leaders is inevitable—and can be beneficial—the more overlap that exists between the two leaders’ roles, the greater the complexity and time required to navigate shared decision-making. If you cannot envision two largely distinct roles for executives to play, co-leadership will be more of a challenge.2. Ideally, leaders are comfortable accepting and supporting their co-leader’s decisions. When full alignment proves elusive—and it sometimes will!—a co-leader needs to be willing to accept and get behind their fellow co-leader’s decision. Even after heated debate (behind closed doors), co-leaders presenting a united public front send a message to their staff and board that the issue is settled and the organization has a clear pathway forward.3. Ideally, power and relationships are balanced. Co-leadership is a lighter lift when leaders have roughly comparable credibility and relationships, both within the organization and among key supporters. If this is not yet the case, staff and board should be actively working to create that balance. They might add board members who have strong connections to the less-well-known co-leader, design moments for board and staff to engage with the leader they are less connected to, and create opportunities for the less-well-known leader to build trust and relationships with donors. Striving for greater balance over time is important because if too much power and accountability for executive responsibilities, like fundraising and board management, rest with one person, the leaders will be equal in name only.4. Ideally, co-leaders will have a high tolerance for discussion, process, and protocol related to decision-making. Co-leadership requires clarity about and commitment to decision-making protocols. Building agreement on decisions with organization-wide implications takes time and intentionality. Leaders who prefer organic, in-the-moment decision-making or who struggle to uphold decision-making protocols may chaff at the reality of authentic co-leadership, in which they will at times lack the freedom to make big calls on their own. Executives who are genuinely leading an organization together are committed to a different, more collaborative leadership style. They are prepared to meet regularly to seek agreement on issues with crosscutting impacts and to accept points of view that differ from their own.

If you move forward with co-leadership, prepare for success...

Prior to shifting to a co-led organization, chief executives must be aligned on the organization’s mission, vision, and long-term goals. They should clarify each person’s role and responsibilities: Which types of decisions can each leader make on their own? Which should be made together? When efforts to reach consensus fail—and they will—who will make the final call?Having clarified these roles, responsibilities, and processes, co-leaders should share with staff how roles and decision-making will work. Living into new decision-making norms with co-leaders takes clear communication, time, and lots and lots of repetition before it becomes habitual.Co-leaders should think hard about how the organization as a whole will handle conflicts. Some organizations have a conflict-resolution protocol with an arbitrator that each leader can go to in times of conflict. Boards may also develop plans for how they will handle conflict, including an option to dismantle the co-leadership structure if needed.

...and commit to following through.

To be an effective team, co-leaders need a strong, respectful, trusting relationship. Such relationships require time and nurturing, and there are no shortcuts. Even when leaders are overwhelmed with demands, regular touchpoints between co-leaders should remain a priority. To navigate conflict and emergencies productively, leaders need skills to engage in open, constructive dialogue and a commitment to the structures and protocols they have developed. The benefits of co-leadership are myriad and rich and can be within reach for organizations that are prepared to do the work to realize them.