‘Two bulls cannot rule in one kraal,’ says an African proverb. The assumption that there can only be one leader is often applied in business too. Conventional thinking expects two leaders in the same space to become rivals and inevitably clash as they fight for dominance. But the recent rise in co-CEO arrangements – where two leaders share the chief executive role as equals – suggests that power sharing at the top may be a viable option for some companies.

Forbes went as far as calling 2025 ‘the year of the co-CEO’. In the US, Oracle and Spotify named co-CEOs to replace their single CEOs. Comcast, the telecoms and media company, announced a co-CEO to serve alongside its longtime sole CEO. In SA, Yoco turned to its co‑founding CTO and CFO as interim co‑CEOs for nine months until the fintech’s first external CEO took over in June 2026.

Along with high-profile co-CEO failures (SAP, Deutsche Bank, Chipotle), there are some enduring success stories. Netflix, for instance, has had joint leaders since 2020 – one acting as the company’s creative and public face while the other focuses on operations, tech and product development. Monster Beverage demonstrates another long-running case, with its (SA) founders serving as co-CEOs since the early 1990s. When Rodney Sacks retired in June 2025, Hilton Schlosberg became the sole CEO. But he still closely consults with Sacks, who is now chair of the US-based Monster’s board.

Closer to home, brothers Mark and Brett Levy jointly founded and have led Blu Label (formerly Blue Label Telecoms) for nearly two decades. ‘We believe the success of our co-CEO structure comes down to a combination of trust, complementary skillsets and complete alignment on the long-term vision of the business,’ they say. ‘We have worked together for decades and have built the company side-by-side from inception, which creates a very different dynamic to co-CEO arrangements that are introduced later in a company’s lifecycle or during a transition period.’ The structure evolved organically with the business, say the Levys. It was never a governance exercise or management experiment but ‘simply the most natural and effective way for us to build and scale the business together’.

It takes emotional intelligence and synergy in leadership styles to co-build and co-lead a business as Mark and Brett Levy have done. ‘Successful co-CEO partnerships often involve individuals with complementary character traits, capabilities and competencies,’ says Adrian Parsadh, an industrial psychologist and lecturer in organisational behaviour and leadership at Stellenbosch Business School. This includes the ability to understand and manage their own emotions as well as empathise with each other, which, according to him, helps in resolving conflicts and building trust. Another key trait is strong communication and engagement skills, he says, as openness, honesty and clarity reduce misunderstandings and create alignment.

‘It’s also important to have a collaborative and growth mindset, in other words, the willingness to share power, listen and build consensus rather than compete, which may create confusion and misalignment across divisions,’ says Parsadh. Ideally, each leader should have strong self-assurance and confidence in leading as well as the humility to admit mistakes and acknowledge the other’s contributions, he says.

At Blu Label, this seems to work. ‘We have always approached the business as partners with shared accountability and mutual respect for each other’s strengths,’ say the Levy brothers. ‘We’re both deeply entrepreneurial but bring different perspectives and focus areas to the table, which creates balance rather than duplication.’ Importantly, they say, the arrangement only works if there is absolute trust, constant communication and alignment on strategy and values.

This also reflects positively on the employees and company culture. ‘Two leaders who model mutual respect, collaborative decision-making, and shared accountability create a visible cultural signal: that vulnerability, support-seeking and partnership are legitimate organisational behaviours – a signal that cascades downward through the organisation,’ according to Frank Magwegwe, faculty member and lecturer in applied behavioural science, resilience and financial wellness at the Gordon Institute of Business Science. ‘Leaders’ own well-being directly shapes the behavioural and emotional climate that their teams experience.’

But while the mental health of leaders is increasingly recognised as critical for organisational performance and employee health, he quotes research in which a quarter (26%) of executives reported symptoms consistent with clinical depression. And nearly half of all CEOs experience feelings of loneliness and isolation that they believe directly impair their performance. ‘The co-CEO model directly addresses this structural isolation,’ says Magwegwe. ‘When leadership is genuinely shared between two equals, neither person carries the full  cognitive, emotional and decision-making burden of the organisation alone.’

He adds that shared leadership functions as a job resource, providing individuals with greater decision-making autonomy, social support and opportunities for authentic contribution. These are all associated with reduced psychological stress and improved leader well-being. ‘The research analogy is compelling,’ says Magwegwe. ‘Just as employees benefit from social network support as a buffer against workplace stress, so too do leaders – and a co-CEO provides that support precisely where it’s most needed and least available.’ A co-CEO who is less stressed, less isolated and more emotionally resourced will, by definition, lead differently and more sustainably, he says.

As business complexity increases, more organisations will experiment with co-leadership models that allow pairs of CEOs to divide the cognitive and operational loads of their roles, according to Harvard Business Review (HBR). Interestingly, the 2025 article ‘When two leaders are better than one’ asks why some co-leadership arrangements thrive while others collapse under pressure. ‘The answer lies in attitudes and execution, not concept,’ argues the author. ‘Co-leadership isn’t inherently good or bad. It’s a tool that amplifies whatever design choices, intent and discipline you bring to it.’

That’s why the same conditions that make shared leadership beneficial can, if poorly managed, become sources of significant stress. For example, Parsadh says, the constant ‘negotiation and re-negotiation between co-CEOs may add to emotional, psychological/mental and physical strain that may impact the quality of decision making’.

 Magwegwe says the core challenge is role clarity and message consistency. ‘Shared leadership carries a double-edged sword effect on employee behaviour: while it can enhance participation and voice, high levels of shared leadership can simultaneously increase employees’ perception of interpersonal risk, thereby reducing constructive behaviour and even inducing silence.’

Co-leadership can fail, according to HBR, when there’s decision ambiguity, stakeholder confusion, and internal fragmentation. ‘Leaders may assume the other is handling critical organisational challenges, resulting in perceptual gaps or negligence impacting governance and accountability,’ says Parsadh. ‘Mixed messages can erode confidence and increase anxiety among key stakeholders.’ Additionally, boards, investors, employees and communities may be confused about whom to hold accountable for successes, failures or setbacks, he says, which can decrease trust.

‘We understand why investors can sometimes view co-CEO structures cautiously,’ say Blu Label’s joint CEOs. ‘While we collaborate closely on major strategic matters, there are clear areas of focus and accountability across the business.’

Brett Levy has historically focused on prepaid, distribution, retail, vouchers and key banking and telecoms, while his brother has concentrated on tech, data, energy and utility opportunities, including strategic sector engagements.

‘In practice, not every operational decision requires dual sign-off,’ say the brothers. ‘The business has clear governance structures, executive management teams and delegated authority frameworks in place.’

So far, co-CEO structures seem to work best in fast-changing industries such as tech or media, during transition phases and for founder-led companies, where trust and aligned vision are strong.

Magwegwe points out that SA’s ubuntu-rooted collectivism and corporate commitment to diversity and transformation creates a natural architecture for shared leadership.

‘The co-CEO model requires both the relational generosity ubuntu provides and the structural clarity and mutual accountability that Western management frameworks have developed,’ he says. ‘South Africa’s unique challenge – and opportunity – is to integrate both.’

By Silke Colquhoun
Image: iStock