There is far too much pressure for a single leader to handle in these times of rapid change. If the job of leadership were to be shared, it might be easier and the leadership more effective.

Problem

Recent history is complete with stories of autocratic, ruthless and almost despotic CEOs.

At Merrill Stan O’Neal’s abrasive personality and ruthless cost cutting earned him many enemies, but his push toward riskier bets and subprime exposure led to his ouster. After Merrill posted the biggest quarterly loss in its 93-year history—and O’Neal was caught approaching Wachovia about a merger without the board’s approval—he was finally fired. But the damage had already been done.

Martin Sullivan approved “retention” bonuses that AIG tried to pay after sucking up nearly $200 billion from U.S. taxpayers. Sullivan was ousted before the bailout, but his inaction as CEO helped create AIG’s mess. He brushed off the firm’s subprime exposure as “manageable” while writedowns mounted and the firm recorded its two largest-ever quarterly losses.

To round it off, one must look at Ken Lay, who was the complete bad CEO package: He was not only dishonest but disastrously inept as a manager as well. Lay, who founded Enron and turned it into a $70 billion energy company, was uninterested in the day-to-day tasks of running the business.

Consequently, he gave free rein to untrustworthy subordinates like Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow. He also signed off on a maze of convoluted transactions that formed the basis of a massive accounting fraud that would wipe out investors and bring down the corporation. Lay was convicted of securities fraud in 2006.

At the center is the issue of too much power being vested in a single person with no checks or balances in place. Nor is there any counter-balancing view at any point.

Solution

The solution to this is to have what I call Co-Leadership at the top. Have 2 or even 3 people share the responsibility of the CEO. Not only would that ensure there are adequate checks and balances, it will also ensure that the pressure on the CEO is considerably lower.

Shared ownership for results creates a much more balanced approach. With two or three people having to sign off on major decisions, the chances of one bad apple bringing a corporation to liquidation are that much lower.

A number of people sharing the job also means that there will be diversity of perspective and a much greater possibility for innovation and creativity in the decision making process at the top. The future of organizations will no longer hinge on one leader's vision or lack of it any longer.

Consider what happened to one of Wall Street’s most esteemed firms, Lehman Brothers. Dick Fuld’s reckless risk-taking may have been typical of Wall Street, but his refusal to acknowledge that his firm was in trouble—and take the steps necessary to save it—was beyond the pale. Since filing the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history ($613 billion in debts outstanding), Fuld has been belligerent and unrepentant. Might this have been averted if there were one or two other people with access to the same information he had?

Or for that matter IBM. While the rest of the world was moving toward personal computing, John Akers remained stuck in the mainframe age, never quite figuring out what to do with IBM at a critical point in the tech industry’s evolution. Many outsiders viewed Akers as being in over his head. IBM was paralyzed by his lack of decisiveness. Had a peer who saw the future differently balanced his indecisiveness, the ending might have been very different. Unfortunately, Akers stepped down shortly after the company announced a $4.97 billion net loss for 1992.

In these fast-changing times, it is almost irrational to expect a CEO to handle all the pressures of the job independently and make all the right calls. Sharing this responsibility creates the much-needed balance at the top.

Practical Impact

There's no dearth of positives that come out of this co-leadership.

What‘s in it for the organization?

– Double the experience given that each person brings a rich history and a proven track record

– Diversity of experience given that each person might have done different roles in different geographies

- Varied functional expertise and educational background

Co-leadership Principles:

–1 function/2 people/1 responsibility

–No functional split

– Act as one head (with 2 faces)

– One work-plan, one variable pay, one board review

– Share success and failure

– Coach each other/learn from each other

– It´s all about partnering, feel challenged, not embarrassed

These principles will foster joint ownership and a healthy challenge on a continuous basis. A despotic, over-ambitious megalomaniac will no longer be able to destroy a corporation with myopic decisions motivated purely by the desire to make a fat bonus.

First Steps

The simplest and quickest way to test this hack is to identify a key role (not the CEO role) to start with and find people willing to share the responsibility of leadership.

You could start by creating co-leadership for a small sub-division or plant and see how that works. There could be a pay cut involved too given that 2 or 3 people are now doing the job that was once being done by a single person. That can be a great way to sift out contenders that are in it for the money alone.

Make the announcement; create a joint identity if you want to go all the way. If Michael & Roger are running X Company together then give them a share email identity like MIRO@X.COM!

Credits

Geeta R

Aswath V

Sairam K

Sairam S

Raynah Remedios

G Sriram

You need to register in order to submit a comment.