028 30 leader kees (subbed).

qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 28

leadership

Dual or duel
leadership?

kees hommes
UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER
alex de voogt
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

amily companies illustrate that brothers, sisters or married

F couples can work together to provide organisational

ABSTRACT: Leadership is complex. Seeking the best
leadership structure for an organisation requires a
continuous effort. But is it necessarily lonely at the
top? This article illustrates the possibility for a
permanent partner who shares the complexities of
leading an organisation.
leadership. Non-profit organisations show a long tradition of
dual leadership, and their leaders are neither friends nor family.
Indeed, almost all types of companies have examples of founders,
family or unrelated partners to co-operate as leaders. Partners at the
top are common. As partners rather than loners, two people can take
responsibility for the strategy of an organisation and lead successfully.
Each organisation has a choice to make when it appoints its leader(s),
or creates its leadership structure: singular or dual leadership.
The literature speaks of plural leadership that ranges from one leader
and an assistant, to entire teams who take responsibility for the
organisation. Co-leaders, leadership couples, split, twin and dual
leadership structures all seem to point at more than one person at the top.
Here the term “dual leadership” is used, defined as two leaders of an
organisation who share executive power and have equal rank. While

28
convergence vol 7 no 4
028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM
many organisations could claim the presence of multiple
leadership by having their leader listen to, or meet with
lower-ranking management, only the formal arrangement
of dual leadership demands a share in power.
It is still widely assumed that leadership is exercised
1
on an individual basis . But in our street it is different. Mr.
and Mrs. Couple run the butcher; our Dell computer has
been purchased from the Dell brothers; and our Fortis
bank appears to have co-chairmen. Indeed, as with J&R
Music, Philips, Hewlett-Packard, Fiat, Laura Ashley,
1, 5, 6
Hermes , they have or had a dual leadership structure,
or shared roles at the top of their company.
It appears that the structure of leadership can change
from shared to singular leadership or vice versa. The
existence of both structures within one company’s history
indicates that the leadership structure is an open choice.
This choice has been common practice in non-profit
organisations. For instance, arts organisations often opt
for a division of tasks, and they create an artistic and
business directorship, since few people possess the
qualities for both. Other organisations split tasks due to
growth, such as large religious congregations that
appoint two reverends to serve their community across
larger regions. In extreme cases dual leadership has been
used as a problem-solving tool for an organisation’s
leadership, as happened with cruise ship captains and
3
museum directors . There, the power structure needed
temporary amending without removing the otherwise
competent manager from its leading position.
MULTIPLE ROLES. Both the definition of roles and the
demarcation of executive tasks are subject to change.
Some of these changes are preceded or accompanied by
new social or professional norms and legal reforms, such
4
as the Sarbanes Oxly Act , a governance regulation. Other
changes are brought about as a result of perceived
increasing complexity, both within and outside of the
organisation. Following the introduction of the chief
operating officer (COO) role in the mid-1960s, the late
1990s brought about a myriad of new roles such as a chief
financial officer (CFO), chief information officer (CIO),
chief technology officer (CTO), chief knowledge officer
(CKO), chief learning officer (CLO) and a chief marketing
officer (CMO) pulling the reins in the marketing
convergence
Page 29
leadership
department. Still new ones are being considered, such as
chief networking officer (CNO) and chief consultant
liaison (CCL). The definition of these new roles is a result
of the increasing complexity of the internal and external
domain, as well as the demands placed on the executive
function. The executive decisions are spread across the
board. All such split decisions could be made in one
management team, and each of the functions mentioned
above could be executed by two persons, rather than just
one. This creates a world of leadership options.
Having both shared and singular
leadership in a company’s history shows
that leadership structure is an open choice
Apart from new roles in the leadership structure,
the increasing need for unequivocal accountability and
clarity in cases of legal, social and ethical scrutiny
sometimes calls for reducing the numbers at the top. In
these cases, a simple hierarchical structure with one
leader leaves no doubt about who is responsible and
accountable for the organisation’s performance.
Complexities may call for additional leaders, and
accountability issues may demand singular leadership.
As a result the leadership structure of an organisation is
a balance between clarity and flexibility.
It is still possible to argue that solo structures are
less capable of responding to strategic uncertainty than
duo structures. The pressure to make decisions based on
large amounts of data, and the continuous need for
making sense of the ambiguous organisational context,
may overwhelm the cognitive capabilities of solo
executives. Or perhaps the two leadings strategies in an
organisation, such as strategic/artistic and
financial/operational, need equal representation to make
it clear that no single strategy will suffice. As one
researcher1 claims: “If the mix of competencies,
background, styles and contacts of the two executives is
appropriate and successfully integrated, the professional
duo provides better decision-making capability at the top
than can the solo executive, who relies on individual
capacities or a loosely knit team.”
29
vol 7 no 4
028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 30
leadership
SPLITTING LEADERSHIP. Splitting roles, previously performed
by one individual, into parts that can be assigned to two
1
individuals can be done mechanistically or organically .
The mechanistic way splits the roles without any
overlap, while in the organic situation the leaders may
have overlapping roles and may work together on
certain tasks.
Arts organisations often allow a clear distinction
between business and artistic leadership. Directors of art
museums are commonly art historians. At the same time,
Successful leadership duos often enjoy a
natural bond, and have clearly
separated roles and well-defined tasks
a need exists for logistical and financial management.
Rarely the two skills of business and artistic management
are combined in one person, and arts organisations
consequently have a long tradition in employing dual
leadership structures.
Similarly, split roles are found in successful family
businesses. In the case of Philips Electronics, one leader
concentrated on the technical part while the other
focused on the business side. Only long-term strategic
decisions would be made in pairs. The extent to which the
leaders share tasks appears to depend both on the
personalities of the individuals involved, and the origins
of the dual leadership arrangement.
When the roles are clearly split, but the competencies
of the leaders overlap strongly (a situation frequently
observed after mergers), the arrangement is still flawed.
When executives do not enjoy the benefit of a natural
division of labour at the top, a third party may be needed
1 1. Alvarez, JL and Svejenova, S (2005.) Sharing Executive Power: Roles and
as the only way to move forward .
DUAL LEADERSHIP, A LOVE AFFAIR? Dual leadership is
implemented in different ways and for different reasons,
but the success of the arrangement depends on more
than just an agreement on how to divide up the work.
Interdependency of, and chemistry between, partners
are important ingredients to keep relationships healthy
over time. Similarly, the interdependency between family
members and friends – financially, emotionally and
30
convergence
socially – tends to result in a relationship fabric that can
stand the test of arguments and disagreements. In
situations where this fabric is absent, the arrangement
may not succeed.
Chemistry is often overlooked in executive searches2,
but in selecting co-leaders, chemistry between the
present executive and incumbent appears crucial. It can
provide the foundation required to work out roles, task
definitions and conflict management.
DUAL OR DUEL LEADERSHIP? Dual leadership is hardly a family
affair, but a common structure that includes leaders of
different skills working together. The multiple and
increasingly complex tasks at hand demand more than
one executive skill to guide the organisation. Examples
from all types of organisations have shown the possible
positive effects of dual arrangements. The dominant idea
remains that a leader should be singular, and that two
people sharing power is calling for trouble. However, the
reader is invited to consider the potential, and explore the
possible benefits of this arrangement, either to solve an
intricate political challenge or to implement strategies
related to the organisation’s external domain.
Successful leadership duos often enjoy a natural bond,
and have clearly separated roles and well-defined tasks.
The existence of an interdependent relationship and
chemistry between the dual leaders is thought to provide
the fabric required to resolve complex problems, including
dual decision-making itself. The absence of these features,
as a result of flawed design or simply incompatibilities
between the individuals, may cause leaders to meet on
each other’s turf regularly and turn dual leadership into
duel leadership.
References:
Relationships at the Top. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
2. Bennis, W and O’Toole, J (2000). “Don’t Hire the Wrong CEO”, Harvard Business
Review, 78, pp170-176.
3. De Voogt, AJ (2006). “Dual Leadership as a Problem-solving Tool for Arts
Organisations”, International Journal of Arts Management, September, pp17-22. HEC
Montreal, Canada.
4. Green, S (2004). Manager’s Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxly Act. New Jersey: John
Wiley & Sons.
5. Gronn, P (1999.) “Substituting for Leadership: The Neglected Role of the Leadership
Couple”, The Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp141-162.
6. Heenan, DA and Bennis, W (1999). Co-leaders: The Power of Great Partnerships.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
vol 7 no 4