Many nonprofit organizations are re-thinking leadership, and some are trying a co-Leadership or Distributed Leadership model where they have multiple CEOs or Executive Directors. I have been interested in seeing why organizations decide to try this model and the benefits and challenges they face.

I interviewed the Board Chair and the current sole Executive Director of a small nonprofit on the east coast that tried a co-leadership model on an interim basis for a year. They had three co-EDs. In the end, they decided to have just a single ED. I wanted to understand what motivated them to try co-EDs and why they ended up with just one. I was impressed with their thoughtful decision-making process.

Chose Model for Stability After Sudden Exit of Former ED

Board Chair: Our previous Executive Director resigned, and we were completely unprepared. We had not done any succession planning, which we should have. The three co-EDs were the senior leadership team – we thought if we just elevated them, we would have good consistency. The benefits were stability, continuity of program, reassurance for our funders and major donors, sense of ease for our staff.

All Major Functions Represented in Decision Making

Executive Director: We called ourselves co-EDs. And each of us had a specific job function that was part of our job title: finance and operations, communications, and programs. Our goal was to have the three functional arms of the organization represented at the top level. That way, when we made decisions, whether strategic or tactical, we had input from three people – and each functional area. I thought the model made our decision making more robust. We came up with better decisions. It’s the power of diversity. We each have different life experiences and perspectives.

In addition, we already had well-defined roles which made working together easier. We only had to talk through who would be responsible for areas that were exclusive to the former ED.

To make sure we were aligned, the three of us had standing meetings twice a week. We also held regular full staff meetings. So, we had at least two touch points per week. And obviously we would meet more often if we needed to.

I became the sole ED, but I still treat the other two as my senior leadership team. I recognize the value they bring to the organization. We still meet weekly, and we still have the decision-making structure we used before. I feel that our decisions are more robust and more impactful. I can — and do — make some decisions quickly if necessary. But I prefer to have a healthy discussion, not only with the other two leaders, but also with the rest of our staff and even outside stakeholders, if necessary.

We had some concern about how the staff would react. There are always personality dynamics in any organization, no matter how big. We had one staff person who did not get along as well with one of the EDs when we first started the shared leadership, but we ironed it. There were a couple other incidents, but I was pleasantly surprised that there were so few.

You also asked about funding and whether our funders or partners were worried about a co-leadership structure. I think over the course of the year, we found the donors were less concerned about the structure and more concerned about the fact that it was not necessarily a permanent.

Board Did Research Before Making Final Decision

Board Chair: As a board, we did not prioritize looking at the leadership structure for a while. Almost nine months went by, time to see how the model worked. Then we came together and asked ourselves what did we want for long-term leadership? We knew it was a board decision, but we turned to the staff to flesh out whether we should make co-EDs permanent. We asked a lot of questions: What kind of accountability structures would need to be put in place? How would we need to alter the organization? As a board, we also did research. There is a growing body of literature around shared or distributed leadership. We talked to other organizations that are experimenting with different models. We also interviewed the three co-EDs and other staff.

The co-EDs were supportive of making the model permanent. But as I said, the decision belonged to the board. Ultimately, we decided that it was not the best fit for the organization, at this time, with our current staff and our current board. It may be that the model works in other circumstances, but we did not feel it was optimal for us. We are a small organization; I do not know, but the model might work better in a larger one.

Chose Sole ED for Accountability, Stability, Staff Support, and Risk

Board Chair: We basically had four reasons for making our decision. First was accountability. We felt strongly that having one ED who answers to the board, one person to work with, was important.

The second reason was long-term stability and longevity. What we gathered from our research is that the success of the model is highly contingent on the people in the co-leadership position at any one time. If any of them turn over, which would inevitably happen, because at some point, one will leave the role, it creates a question all over – does this structure make sense? Could we even hire someone to fill one-third of an ED role? It is not a model that most people understand or have experienced. We thought about a hypothetical situation where one of them left. We would have different people on the board. Different staff. And the co-EDs would have to rebuild the relationships again.

The third area was staff support. We felt it was important for the staff to know who is in charge. What we learned from our research is that in practice organizations end up having a de facto ED. There is an unspoken knowledge that one person is really the go-to person whether it’s on paper or not. That creates confusion internally.

The fourth reason is about risk and impact. As a board, we take our role as stewards of the organization’s mission and impact seriously. Right now, no one knows whether a shared leadership structure improves an organization’s social impact. It’s unproven. So, it represents a risk. Maybe in five or ten years evidence will emerge. But right now, the evidence is not there. We felt that it was our responsibility as stewards of the organization to use a model that has been proven.

Executive Director: As a co-ED, I understood that the decision belonged to the board. And I hope that I made it clear to them that I was okay either way – with the co-leadership model or with a single leader. But if they did go with a single leader, I wanted the job. I was balancing: Showing support to my co-EDs and also showing that I was prepared to be a single ED. I wanted my co-EDs to know that I would work with them and support them either way, that I respected them.

Board Chair: One thing that made this easier is that both of the other co-EDs told me individually that they did not want to be the single leader. They liked to share leadership, but neither one of them wanted to be the lone ED. If all three had wanted to be the single ED and we chose only one, the chance of the other two leaving would have been pretty high. It was definitely something we thought about carefully. If we elevate one, what will happen to the other two? It could have created a lot of instability.

Choice of Full Search or Promoting from Inside

Board Chair: Once we decided to go with a single leader, we had a second decision to make. Do we choose one of the current leaders or do we do an outside search? I will just say that over the course of a year watching our three EDs function, the one we chose showed real leadership in the way they supported and worked with the board. They stepped up and embraced new kinds of functions that they were not doing previously. We felt strongly enough about it that we never really entertained doing a full search. We did not consider it because we had a good option. And a search costs a lot of money.

We were fortunate. Our ED has a long tenure with the organization and some unique talents and skills we were looking for. The other leaders are also great with essential skills and experience. More importantly, they were totally happy with not being co-ED or single ED. They had worked with the ED we chose and fully supported them.

Succession Planning and Transitions Were Key Issues

Executive Director: Succession planning is huge. I would echo what the Board Chair was saying about how the shared leadership model worked well with the personalities that we had in place. But if we had to replace someone, what would that look like? That was my biggest concern about shared leadership. What if somebody wins the lottery and moves to Tahiti, how are we going to have that trust with a new person? The other thing I thought about was accountability. As the Board Chair alluded before, not just accountability with the board, but accountability with each other. What if one co-leader decided to work remotely so much that they started to neglect some responsibilities so that the other two had to step up? Who holds that person accountable if they are not doing what is expected?

Because we had all been at the organization for many years. We worked together well as a senior leadership team, which allowed us to work together well as co-EDs. You cannot easily replicate that.

Lessons Learned

• Plan for succession before you need it, while things are stable. Ask the current ED at least yearly who they would have step up if something happened which caused them to be out of work for months or if they should decide to leave. EDs know their staffs best. As a board, think about whether you would want to have an interim ED or not and under what circumstances. Also consider whether you would promote from within or do a full search.
• If you are considering a shared leadership structure, talk to others who have been operating under that structure for some time to hear their experiences.
• If you decide to have an interim, do not wait an entire year before making a permanent decision.
• If you use a co-leadership model, make sure that everyone is absolutely crystal clear on their roles and responsibilities, including not only the co-leaders themselves, but also staff and board.
• If you use a co-leadership model, think through accountability. How should each of the leaders be accountable to the board? How should they be accountable to each other? What will the board do if a conflict arises amongst the co-leaders?

Other Posts on Leadership Transitions

I have written other posts on Leadership Transitions and hiring a new CEO or ED. You may want to look at them as well:

• Hiring a New CEO or Executive Director – Leading Well
• Expert Advice on Hiring a New Executive Director – Leading Well
• Thoughts on Hiring a New CEO or ED – Leading Well
• Keep Funding and Over-Communicate During Transitions – Leading Well
• No One Should Be Indispensable – Leading Well
• Check Your Ego and Prioritize the Organization – Leading Well
• When Founders Stick Around – Leading Well
• Unclear Roles Lead to Conflict and Chaos – Leading Well
• For Success, Pay Attention After You Hire the ED – Leading Well
• An Executive Director Search that Went Wrong – Leading Well
• Potential Pitfalls: Role of Outgoing CEO in Hiring Replacement – Leading Well