dual or duel leadership?

3
kees hommes UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER alex de voogt MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT Dual or duel leadership? F amily companies illustrate that brothers, sisters or married couples can work together to provide organisational leadership. Non-profit organisations show a long tradition of dual leadership, and their leaders are neither friends nor family. Indeed, almost all types of companies have examples of founders, family or unrelated partners to co-operate as leaders. Partners at the top are common. As partners rather than loners, two people can take responsibility for the strategy of an organisation and lead successfully. Each organisation has a choice to make when it appoints its leader(s), or creates its leadership structure: singular or dual leadership. The literature speaks of plural leadership that ranges from one leader and an assistant, to entire teams who take responsibility for the organisation. Co-leaders, leadership couples, split, twin and dual leadership structures all seem to point at more than one person at the top. Here the term “dual leadership” is used, defined as two leaders of an organisation who share executive power and have equal rank. While leadership 28 convergence vol 7 no 4 ABSTRACT: Leadership is complex. Seeking the best leadership structure for an organisation requires a continuous effort. But is it necessarily lonely at the top? This article illustrates the possibility for a permanent partner who shares the complexities of leading an organisation. 028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 28

Upload: kees-hommes

Post on 27-Apr-2015

911 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Leadership is complex. Seeking the best leadership structure for an organisation requires a continuous effort. But is it necessarily lonely at the top? This article illustrates the possibility for a permanent partner who shares the complexities of leading an organisation.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Dual or Duel Leadership?

kees hommesUNIVERSITY RESEARCHER

alex de voogtMANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

Dual or duelleadership?

Family companies illustrate that brothers, sisters or married

couples can work together to provide organisational

leadership. Non-profit organisations show a long tradition of

dual leadership, and their leaders are neither friends nor family.

Indeed, almost all types of companies have examples of founders,

family or unrelated partners to co-operate as leaders. Partners at the

top are common. As partners rather than loners, two people can take

responsibility for the strategy of an organisation and lead successfully.

Each organisation has a choice to make when it appoints its leader(s),

or creates its leadership structure: singular or dual leadership.

The literature speaks of plural leadership that ranges from one leader

and an assistant, to entire teams who take responsibility for the

organisation. Co-leaders, leadership couples, split, twin and dual

leadership structures all seem to point at more than one person at the top.

Here the term “dual leadership” is used, defined as two leaders of an

organisation who share executive power and have equal rank. While

leadership

28

c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 7 n o 4

ABSTRACT: Leadership is complex. Seeking the best

leadership structure for an organisation requires a

continuous effort. But is it necessarily lonely at the

top? This article illustrates the possibility for a

permanent partner who shares the complexities of

leading an organisation.

028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 28

Page 2: Dual or Duel Leadership?

many organisations could claim the presence of multiple

leadership by having their leader listen to, or meet with

lower-ranking management, only the formal arrangement

of dual leadership demands a share in power.

It is still widely assumed that leadership is exercised

on an individual basis1. But in our street it is different. Mr.

and Mrs. Couple run the butcher; our Dell computer has

been purchased from the Dell brothers; and our Fortis

bank appears to have co-chairmen. Indeed, as with J&R

Music, Philips, Hewlett-Packard, Fiat, Laura Ashley,

Hermes1, 5, 6, they have or had a dual leadership structure,

or shared roles at the top of their company.

It appears that the structure of leadership can change

from shared to singular leadership or vice versa. The

existence of both structures within one company’s history

indicates that the leadership structure is an open choice.

This choice has been common practice in non-profit

organisations. For instance, arts organisations often opt

for a division of tasks, and they create an artistic and

business directorship, since few people possess the

qualities for both. Other organisations split tasks due to

growth, such as large religious congregations that

appoint two reverends to serve their community across

larger regions. In extreme cases dual leadership has been

used as a problem-solving tool for an organisation’s

leadership, as happened with cruise ship captains and

museum directors3. There, the power structure needed

temporary amending without removing the otherwise

competent manager from its leading position.

MULTIPLE ROLES. Both the definition of roles and the

demarcation of executive tasks are subject to change.

Some of these changes are preceded or accompanied by

new social or professional norms and legal reforms, such

as the Sarbanes Oxly Act4, a governance regulation. Other

changes are brought about as a result of perceived

increasing complexity, both within and outside of the

organisation. Following the introduction of the chief

operating officer (COO) role in the mid-1960s, the late

1990s brought about a myriad of new roles such as a chief

financial officer (CFO), chief information officer (CIO),

chief technology officer (CTO), chief knowledge officer

(CKO), chief learning officer (CLO) and a chief marketing

officer (CMO) pulling the reins in the marketing

department. Still new ones are being considered, such as

chief networking officer (CNO) and chief consultant

liaison (CCL). The definition of these new roles is a result

of the increasing complexity of the internal and external

domain, as well as the demands placed on the executive

function. The executive decisions are spread across the

board. All such split decisions could be made in one

management team, and each of the functions mentioned

above could be executed by two persons, rather than just

one. This creates a world of leadership options.

Apart from new roles in the leadership structure,

the increasing need for unequivocal accountability and

clarity in cases of legal, social and ethical scrutiny

sometimes calls for reducing the numbers at the top. In

these cases, a simple hierarchical structure with one

leader leaves no doubt about who is responsible and

accountable for the organisation’s performance.

Complexities may call for additional leaders, and

accountability issues may demand singular leadership.

As a result the leadership structure of an organisation is

a balance between clarity and flexibility.

It is still possible to argue that solo structures are

less capable of responding to strategic uncertainty than

duo structures. The pressure to make decisions based on

large amounts of data, and the continuous need for

making sense of the ambiguous organisational context,

may overwhelm the cognitive capabilities of solo

executives. Or perhaps the two leadings strategies in an

organisation, such as strategic/artistic and

financial/operational, need equal representation to make

it clear that no single strategy will suffice. As one

researcher1 claims: “If the mix of competencies,

background, styles and contacts of the two executives is

appropriate and successfully integrated, the professional

duo provides better decision-making capability at the top

than can the solo executive, who relies on individual

capacities or a loosely knit team.”

Having both shared and singular

leadership in a company’s history shows

that leadership structure is an open choice

leadership

29

c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 7 n o 4

028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 29

Page 3: Dual or Duel Leadership?

leadership

SPLITTING LEADERSHIP. Splitting roles, previously performed

by one individual, into parts that can be assigned to two

individuals can be done mechanistically or organically1.

The mechanistic way splits the roles without any

overlap, while in the organic situation the leaders may

have overlapping roles and may work together on

certain tasks.

Arts organisations often allow a clear distinction

between business and artistic leadership. Directors of art

museums are commonly art historians. At the same time,

a need exists for logistical and financial management.

Rarely the two skills of business and artistic management

are combined in one person, and arts organisations

consequently have a long tradition in employing dual

leadership structures.

Similarly, split roles are found in successful family

businesses. In the case of Philips Electronics, one leader

concentrated on the technical part while the other

focused on the business side. Only long-term strategic

decisions would be made in pairs. The extent to which the

leaders share tasks appears to depend both on the

personalities of the individuals involved, and the origins

of the dual leadership arrangement.

When the roles are clearly split, but the competencies

of the leaders overlap strongly (a situation frequently

observed after mergers), the arrangement is still flawed.

When executives do not enjoy the benefit of a natural

division of labour at the top, a third party may be needed

as the only way to move forward1.

DUAL LEADERSHIP, A LOVE AFFAIR? Dual leadership is

implemented in different ways and for different reasons,

but the success of the arrangement depends on more

than just an agreement on how to divide up the work.

Interdependency of, and chemistry between, partners

are important ingredients to keep relationships healthy

over time. Similarly, the interdependency between family

members and friends – financially, emotionally and

socially – tends to result in a relationship fabric that can

stand the test of arguments and disagreements. In

situations where this fabric is absent, the arrangement

may not succeed.

Chemistry is often overlooked in executive searches2,

but in selecting co-leaders, chemistry between the

present executive and incumbent appears crucial. It can

provide the foundation required to work out roles, task

definitions and conflict management.

DUAL OR DUEL LEADERSHIP? Dual leadership is hardly a family

affair, but a common structure that includes leaders of

different skills working together. The multiple and

increasingly complex tasks at hand demand more than

one executive skill to guide the organisation. Examples

from all types of organisations have shown the possible

positive effects of dual arrangements. The dominant idea

remains that a leader should be singular, and that two

people sharing power is calling for trouble. However, the

reader is invited to consider the potential, and explore the

possible benefits of this arrangement, either to solve an

intricate political challenge or to implement strategies

related to the organisation’s external domain.

Successful leadership duos often enjoy a natural bond,

and have clearly separated roles and well-defined tasks.

The existence of an interdependent relationship and

chemistry between the dual leaders is thought to provide

the fabric required to resolve complex problems, including

dual decision-making itself. The absence of these features,

as a result of flawed design or simply incompatibilities

between the individuals, may cause leaders to meet on

each other’s turf regularly and turn dual leadership into

duel leadership.

References:

1. Alvarez, JL and Svejenova, S (2005.) Sharing Executive Power: Roles and

Relationships at the Top. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

2. Bennis, W and O’Toole, J (2000). “Don’t Hire the Wrong CEO”, Harvard Business

Review, 78, pp170-176.

3. De Voogt, AJ (2006). “Dual Leadership as a Problem-solving Tool for Arts

Organisations”, International Journal of Arts Management, September, pp17-22. HEC

Montreal, Canada.

4. Green, S (2004). Manager’s Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxly Act. New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons.

5. Gronn, P (1999.) “Substituting for Leadership: The Neglected Role of the Leadership

Couple”, The Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp141-162.

6. Heenan, DA and Bennis, W (1999). Co-leaders: The Power of Great Partnerships.

New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Successful leadership duos often enjoy a

natural bond, and have clearly

separated roles and well-defined tasks

30

c o n v e r g e n c e v o l 7 n o 4

028 30 leader kees (subbed).qxd 2006/11/21 02:37 PM Page 30