Why do companies now have two CEOs? A model that, if implemented correctly, can bring numerous benefits

A few years ago, Netflix made a move that many analysts still consider risky today: it introduced a dual leadership at the top of the company by appointing two CEOs. At a time when most multinational companies tended to concentrate leadership in a single figure, this decision seemed counterintuitive. Recently, Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos stated that the dual leadership formula is not suitable for every company, but for Netflix it proved to be a winning choice. A key element for the success of shared corporate management is often the presence of the founder among the co-CEOs, someone who chooses to delegate part of their power to a trusted collaborator who has grown within the organization.

But beware: two CEOs do not merely divide tasks – as the Wall Street Journal points out, it is more like doubling the company’s capabilities in terms of skills, strategic vision, and operational agility. The fact remains that the model works when there is a clear distinction of roles: in many cases, the logic behind this approach is to pair the company founder with the manager identified as their future successor. Looking closely, this is exactly what happened at Netflix, when – in 2020 – founder Reed Hastings appointed Ted Sarandos as co-CEO.

The main reason why the dual-CEO model has been little adopted so far has to do with its inherent complexity. When roles are not clearly defined, this approach can create uncertainty among employees and executives, who may not know who holds the final say in strategic decisions. Difficulties increase if the two leaders are not fully aligned or, worse, if they end up competing with each other. Conversely, when the division of tasks is clear and based on mutual trust, co-leadership can become a valuable asset: two different yet complementary perspectives that strengthen the company’s vision and innovation capability.

Unsurprisingly, in recent months several large companies have also decided to adopt this model. Spotify, for instance, announced that Alex Norström and Gustav Söderström – previously co-president and Chief Commercial Officer – will be the new CEOs of the world’s largest music streaming platform. Even Oracle, the U.S. cloud computing giant, after having previously abandoned co-management to return to a single leadership, recently appointed two CEOs: Clay Magouyrk and Mike Sicilia.

However, the co-CEO model does not always deliver the expected results. Shared top management requires a delicate balance which, if compromised, can generate inefficiencies and conflicts. A notable case is Salesforce, a cloud services company, which twice attempted to introduce a co-CEO alongside founder Marc Benioff, but failed to maintain stable leadership. The same happened at the large German software company SAP. Yet, as risky as it is, the choice of dual leadership seems to bring positive results in companies that manage to make it work.

A 2022 study by the Harvard Business Review, conducted on thousands of companies worldwide, shows that companies led by two CEOs achieve on average a higher total annual return than those with a single CEO. Despite this, it remains a niche model: on average, just over 1% of companies manage to adopt a two-CEO structure. Moreover, co-leaders generally tend to stay in office for shorter periods (about half compared to traditional CEOs), while the longest-tenured cases occur when one of the CEOs is also the company’s founder.