Seeing Double: The Communications Challenge of Co-CEOs

The co-CEO model, once considered a corporate curiosity, is emerging in some of the world’s most high-profile companies. From Spotify to Comcast, boards are betting that complex businesses demand shared leadership.

The logic is sound: one leader can’t be everywhere, know everything, or master every domain, especially in a world evolving at such a pace. However, while splitting responsibility might make sense on the org chart, it raises a pressing question: how do you lead with two voices without creating confusion, division, or doubt?

The answer lies in effective communication.

The new bar for leadership

The bar for leadership has changed, while the spotlight on CEOs has never been brighter nor more unforgiving.

Results alone no longer build reputation; they have become the baseline. Credibility is judged by presence. Research indicates that 44% of a company's market value is directly tied to the CEO's reputation (KRC Research/Weber Shandwick).

Internally, the same holds true. More than 70% of employees are more likely to stay when leaders communicate openly, empathetically, and transparently (PwC). In a co-CEO structure, invisibility or inconsistency is magnified.

The new bar for leadership demands that both voices show up clear in purpose.

Trust multiplied or divided

Trust is a strategic asset. 88% of customers believe that trust is more critical during times of change (Salesforce). For co-CEOs, they cannot assume that the trust they built in previous roles will carry over into this new dynamic. In fact, they are starting from a trust deficit, burdened by the perception that dual leadership invites confusion. Spotify shares fell 5.0%, equating to $7.4 billion, in the week following its succession news. Beyond the necessary need to project unity, they also need to navigate this perception.

They must work extra hard to communicate unity, competence, and complementary offerings to avoid further erosion of trust. A communication architecture that emphasises clarity of role, narrative coherence, and alignment of voice is existential. Without them, the dual structure risks being read as conflict or dysfunction.

Silence has a cost

In moments of crisis or cultural tension, silence is rarely neutral. It creates a vacuum that employees, investors, and the media rush to fill. Employees who view leadership as opaque are nearly twice as likely to consider leaving compared with those who see leadership as transparent (Deloitte).

For co-CEOs, silence or hesitation is even more damaging. If one speaks and the other does not, stakeholders quickly draw conclusions: Who is really in charge? Are they divided? Is one retreating? Is one more competent?

Inconsistent messaging between two CEOs also risks hard-coding confusion into search, summaries, and digital reputations.

Joint visibility is essential - whether through shared appearances at all-hands meetings, coordinated external commentary, or pre-agreed crisis protocols where one CEO leads on messaging but the other reinforces alignment.

A bold bet, but only when done well

The co-CEO model is a bold bet. Done well, it signals adaptability, collaboration, and future-readiness. Done poorly, it risks appearing indecisive or divided. The distinction is found in communication. Two voices can create harmony or discord.

If your organisation is considering a co-CEO structure, or already navigating one, now is the time to invest in your communication architecture.

Get in touch to discuss our CEO Communications offer.