Aligned Co-CEO Operating Model
Unify direction while dividing leadership by expertise and availability
- Difficulty
- Expert
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 94%
The model begins with alignment rather than task division. Prospective co-leaders compare their visions for the organization and proceed only if they can support the same direction. Complementary expertise then creates leverage: one leader may take greater weight on client and commercial matters while the other leads on investments or operations. Significant issues are discussed jointly so employees and clients receive a consistent institutional answer rather than shopping between executives. Within that shared position, the leader with deeper subject expertise can take the lead. Two executives also expand organizational coverage by handling simultaneous internal meetings, client engagements, and geographic demands. The structure is monitored through team feedback and depends on mutual respect, direct communication, and disciplined conflict resolution.
Origin
Extracted from Masters in Business, where John Chisholm described Acadian's succession process and his first year sharing the CEO role with Ross Dowd.
Core principles
- 01Shared vision must precede shared authority
- 02Complementary expertise makes dual leadership useful
- 03The organization must hear one consistent answer
- 04Important issues require direct consultation between co-leaders
- 05Leadership capacity grows when representation can be divided
How to run it
- 1
Test strategic alignment
Have each candidate independently state the organization's future direction, priorities, and desired changes. Compare substantive positions before designing the structure.
Pro tip Use concrete scenarios rather than relying on broad statements of agreement.
Watch out A co-CEO title cannot repair fundamentally competing visions.
- 2
Map complementary strengths
Identify where each leader has stronger expertise, credibility, relationships, or context. Use those differences to create leadership leverage.
Pro tip Describe domains of emphasis without constructing isolated executive kingdoms.
Watch out Rigid silos can undermine shared accountability.
- 3
Establish the single-voice rule
Agree that employees, clients, and partners must receive a consistent answer from either leader. Resolve differing views privately before communicating externally.
Pro tip Create a rapid consultation channel for issues that cannot wait for scheduled meetings.
Watch out Allowing stakeholders to solicit competing answers destroys trust and authority.
- 4
Discuss and assign each issue
For consequential matters, compare perspectives, decide the intended outcome, and determine who should lead based on expertise and context.
Pro tip Let the more knowledgeable leader carry more weight without treating that as permanent seniority.
Watch out Joint discussion should not become mandatory duplication of every routine decision.
- 5
Exploit parallel capacity
Divide simultaneous geographic, client, and internal responsibilities while maintaining shared context. Use the extra coverage to increase leadership availability.
Pro tip Brief each other after separate engagements so information remains shared.
Watch out Parallel work without synchronization can gradually produce two organizations.
- 6
Audit the structure
Gather candid feedback from executives, employees, and clients about clarity and effectiveness. Adjust decision boundaries and communication habits as needed.
Pro tip Look specifically for contradictory instructions or uncertainty about escalation paths.
Watch out Apparent harmony between the co-leaders does not prove the structure is clear to everyone else.
In the wild
A major client meeting in Tokyo conflicts with an internal investment-policy review in Boston. The commercially focused co-CEO handles the client discussion while the investment-focused co-CEO leads the internal review, after both align on messages and decisions.
→ The firm gains executive coverage in two places without issuing inconsistent direction.
A new strategy raises investment, pricing, and client-positioning questions. Both co-CEOs agree on the desired result; the investment specialist leads model and capacity decisions while the commercial specialist leads market communication.
→ Specialized judgment improves the decision while both leaders remain accountable for the unified outcome.
Common mistakes
Dividing authority before aligning vision
Clear task boundaries cannot compensate for disagreement about where the organization should go.
Giving different answers
Stakeholders will exploit or become confused by contradictory guidance. Co-leaders must settle disagreements privately and communicate one position.
Duplicating every activity
If both leaders attend every meeting and approve every action, the structure adds delay rather than capacity.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for organizations with highly aligned leaders whose expertise and coverage needs are genuinely complementary.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for leaders with competing visions, low mutual trust, or unresolved authority disputes.
From the transcript
“generally you had co CEOs with highly aligned visions and that we're able to work together to provide a single voice of the firm.”
“So you don't want somebody coming to Ross getting one answer and then coming to me and getting a different answer.”
“We What we typically do is issue comes up, we will discuss it together.”
From the episode
Acadian’s John Chisholm Discusses Investments
John Chisholm