Two heads, one throne: The rise of co-CEOs

In recent weeks, several high-profile companies have made waves by appointing co-chief executives. Spotify, Oracle and Comcast are just a few examples. This development invites questions:

Is the co-CEO model a savvy response to complexity, or just a bit of corporate rebranding? And what lessons might startup founders or SME leaders draw from having more than one top person at the helm?

The Spotify example

Spotify founder and current CEO Daniel Ek will become Executive Chairman on 1 January 2026. He’ll hand over his day-to-day CEO role to two long-serving executives, Gustav Söderström and Alex Norström. They’ll serve as co-CEOs. 

“Over the last few years, I’ve turned over a large part of the day-to-day management and strategic direction of Spotify to Alex and Gustav … This change simply matches titles to how we already operate,” Daniel explains.

Spotify’s move is a practical one. The deployment of the co-CEO title hasn’t created a new role on an operational level.

The transition formalises what is already happening, reducing rather than adding ambiguity. This isn’t necessarily the case for other companies considering going down the co-CEO route.

What co-CEO means in theory

The co-CEO structure means two individuals share the chief executive title and responsibility. This can look different from company to company:

• Sometimes each has distinct domains (product vs operations, technology vs business).

• Sometimes they are equal in title but divide up responsibilities in practice.

• Sometimes the co-CEO setup evolves from an existing dual role (for example, co-presidents) rather than being entirely new.

There are obvious parallels with co-founders: two or more people who started the business together often share a vision, share the pressure, and split up roles in line with their strengths, skills and interests. 

A co-CEO structure is different because it's formalised in organisational hierarchy, public accountability, and often comes with distinct reporting lines or domains.

So, are co-CEOs a good idea? Are two heads really better than one? As is often the case, the answer is: it depends!

Pros of the co-CEO model

1. Division of labour & complementary skills

When two leaders have different but complementary strengths, each can focus on what they do best. One might handle external-facing duties while the other manages internal operations, tech, or product.

As Nicolas Sauvage, the President of TDK Ventures, explains, as companies grow: 

Diversity of thought and approaches at the very top becomes an advantage.

2. Succession planning & continuity

If a founder or long-time CEO wants to step back or shift focus, a co-CEO model can smooth the transition. It makes it easier for the organisation to gradually bring in or promote internal leaders, sharing authority before entirely handing over.

3. Resilience & workload sharing

Big organisations have many fires to put out. Having two people at the top can help with burnout, as one can step in when the other is stretched or focusing elsewhere.

4. More flexible leadership for different business units

As companies diversify (products, geographies, regulatory regimes, business models), having two CEOs each focused on particular domains can allow more tailored, effective oversight.

5. Potentially better outcomes

In some cases, co-CEO arrangements have received positive market reactions, particularly when they promote internal stability or greater strategic focus.

Cons of the co-CEO model

1. Ambiguity in authority

Who's the boss? Unless responsibilities are clearly carved out, employees, investors or other stakeholders may be unclear about who is accountable and who holds the authority in a specific area.

2. Power struggles or differing visions

Two leaders, even if aligned, may diverge in priorities over time. Differences of opinion about resource allocation or strategy can lead to tension.

3. Mixed signals to stakeholders

Investors and employees may prefer a single “face” of the company. If co-CEOs speak differently or emphasise different priorities, messaging can become inconsistent.

4. Complexity and cost

Dual leadership demands more communication, alignment and governance. If this doesn’t happen, the overlap can introduce inefficiencies.

5. Cultural fit and personality

For co-CEO structures to work, both individuals must be able to trust each other and communicate exceptionally well. If the chemistry is off, the model quickly unravels. 

The same tips for co-founder matching, which our CEO Ifty Nasir shared, apply here: 

If you can find their ‘ugly’ and if you’re still sure, it’s probably a match. 

What it means for SMEs and startups

In many ways, a co-CEO arrangement mirrors the dynamic between co-founders: two or more people start a business together, share the same ambition, and shoulder the same risks.

However, if their responsibilities aren’t clearly defined from the outset, confusion and friction can creep in over time. 

As a company begins to grow, so too do the pressures placed on its leadership team. The founder who once managed everything from product development to sales and investor relations can quickly become stretched too thin. 

If that’s the case, introducing a co-CEO model—or at least empowering a strong second-in-command, such as a chief operating officer—can help distribute that pressure more sustainably. 

A co-CEO structure enables leaders to specialise in their strengths: one might focus on vision and external growth, while the other takes responsibility for operations and delivery. This balance can help a business scale without burning out its founders.

Equally important is the question of fairness and recognition. In the early days of a startup, enthusiasm and shared purpose often outweigh formal structures, but as responsibilities grow and diverge, so must the mechanisms for recognising contribution. 

When senior leaders feel their work is valued and their impact reflected in how they’re rewarded, it reinforces trust and long-term motivation.

This is where equity plays a defining role. By giving senior leaders a real stake in the business - through well-structured share/option schemes - recognition becomes more than verbal appreciation. 

In this way, smaller companies can learn from the principles behind the co-CEO model: that shared leadership, when supported by clarity, fairness, and aligned incentives, can build not only stronger companies but also more resilient leadership teams.

Discover how you could give your star players skin in the game!

Weighing it up: should you consider a co-CEO?

If you’re running an SME or a growing company, consider these questions before diving headfirst down the co-CEO route:

1. Is your business too complex for one person to manage effectively?

2. Do you have two leaders with complementary skills and mutual trust?

3. Can you define domains clearly, so decisions don’t overlap?

4. Do you have governance structures to maintain alignment?

5. Will stakeholders understand who to approach for what?

If the answer to these is yes, a co-CEO structure could work (if so, check out Professor Michael D. Watkins’s ‘Seven Principles for Success’). If not, it may be better to keep a single CEO with empowered deputies. 

And you don’t necessarily need to bestow a title to make sure your workers feel valued: often recognition and competitive remuneration (such as giving them a real stake in the company’s future and growth opportunities) are what truly matter.