For many associations, leadership has traditionally meant one CEO, one voice, and one point of accountability. It’s familiar, straightforward, and deeply ingrained in the industry. So, when an organization embraces a co-leadership model, the first reaction is often curiosity followed closely by skepticism.
People wonder: Does it actually work? Doesn’t it create confusion? Isn’t it risky?
Eighteen months into our shared role as co-executive directors, we’ve found the inverse to be true. When intentionally designed, co-leadership offers advantages that single-executive models simply cannot replicate, especially in an environment where associations must be simultaneously innovative, stable, member-centric, and future-focused.
This partnership model doesn’t partition power; it multiplies potential.
Successful co-leadership is built on clarity, not convenience. Long before assuming the role together, we spent significant time defining not only what each of us would lead, but why that division made sense for the organization.
Co-leadership doesn’t require identical leaders. It benefits from complementary ones. At its core, the model brings two perspectives to the table highlighting different experiences, instincts, and styles that sharpen and strengthen decision-making. Instead of relying on a single vantage point, organizations benefit from expanded strategic depth.
What makes co-leadership work are the same qualities that make any leadership effective: clarity, humility, communication, and a shared commitment to the mission. When those foundations are in place, the perceived challenges — confusion, conflict, competing visions — don’t materialize.
Associations aspire to “meet members where they are.” Designing a co-leadership model requires the same mindset internally: build the structure around the talent, not the other way around.
One of the greatest advantages of co-leadership is the way paired decision-making accelerates progress while sharpening judgment. With two leaders thinking in parallel rather than sequentially, ideas are vetted faster, options are strengthened through discussion, and decisions move forward with greater confidence.
Instead of relying on a single viewpoint, the organization benefits from two leaders who bring different instincts and experiences to the table. This creates a built-in system of thoughtful challenges — one that uncovers risks, elevates opportunities, and leads to decisions that are more thoroughly examined, yet reached with greater efficiency.
The result is velocity paired with depth: forward movement that is both faster and smarter.
A co-leadership model can only succeed if governance structures understand and support it. The Radiology Business Management Association (RBMA)’s Executive Search Committee spent significant time probing how the model would work: How would responsibilities be divided? How would conflict be handled? What decisions required joint authority versus individual ownership? Knowing the answers to these questions was essential to building trust.
We also engaged openly with our board about how to evaluate shared leadership effectively. Performance is assessed collectively, reinforcing the belief that success in the role is interdependent, not competitive.
The most persistent belief about co-leadership is that two leaders mean twice the tension, twice the politics, twice the risk of gridlock.
And yes, those are certainly valid concerns. But the difficulty isn’t baked into the model; it’s baked into leadership itself. Any leadership structure without clarity and trust will fracture.
That said, a few co-leadership pitfalls to be mindful of include:
Conflict isn’t inevitable. Misalignment is. And misalignment is a leadership problem, not a co-leadership problem.
The old adage that “it’s lonely at the top” is just that: old.
Co-leadership has made the work feel less isolating and far more human. Instead of carrying the weight of decisions alone, we share the thinking. Instead of absorbing pressure individually, we distribute it. Instead of navigating challenges in solitude, we approach them side by side.
The model creates a built-in partnership: one that offers balance, perspective, and emotional steadiness. Leadership becomes something supported rather than solitary. There is someone to challenge ideas with curiosity, someone to celebrate success without pretense, and someone to face difficult moments with clarity and compassion.
Co-leadership strengthens the work, but it also strengthens the leaders. It transforms the role from a position you stand in alone to a place where two people can lead with confidence and connection.
According to a Bain & Company study of 1,250 companies across 11 industries and three global regions, “Effective leadership teams outperform even the most effective individual leaders. Every time. In almost every context.” In a 2022 article examining shared leadership, author Julia Kuzmina asserts the reason behind the model's success, “is that shared leadership structures itself around change and innovation, which is found to have a higher impact on team performance compared to traditional leadership styles.”
For associations looking ahead to the next decade, navigating technology shifts, workforce pressure, governance evolution, and increasing expectations for both vision and operational excellence, co-leadership offers a powerful alternative to the traditional model.
Co-Leadership enables organizations to expand capacity and build a leadership structure that mirrors the values associations champion every day: community, collaboration, and collective purpose.
At its best, co-leadership does not divide.
It elevates.
It strengthens.
And it ensures no leader, and no organization, must do the work alone.
