Co-chairing: a double-edged sword for board leadership

Boards with co-chairs are unusual in New Zealand and internationally. In 2022 Sports New Zealand commented that “the approach is at present prevalent only in government and the non-profit world. It has not caught on internationally or in the private sector”.

The IoD 2024 Leadership Conference was treated to hearing from three co-chairs about their experience and the strengths and pitfalls of this approach.

Conference participants heard from:

Victoria Spackman: Board member and former co-chair Toi Mai Workforce Development Council. Governance arrangements for the Workforce Development Councils mandated co-chairing in clause 15 of the Education (Toi Mai Workforce Development Council) Order 2021.
Pam Elgar: Co-chair with Auckland Restorative Justice Trust, member of Paralympics New Zealand and co-chair of Presbyterian Support Northern, as well as honorary role of president of Hockey New Zealand and vice president Female Auckland Hockey.
Rawiri Bhana: Chair of IndigiShare, chair of Te Ara Poutama Māori & Pasifika Trade Training Consortia, and more recently as co-chair of Community Governance Aotearoa

The panel gave several pieces of high-level sage advice about co-chairing to their fellow directors:

Reasons for adopting the co-chairing approach matter: Orgnisations need clear reasons for adopting the co-chair model. They need to make deliberate decisions about this choice and document them. Co-chairing is not a silver bullet but may have benefits for some organisations.
There will be tensions and conflict: Co-chairing can create the same kind of tensions between people that boards do when there is misalignment of interests, values, or philosophy. The panel noted that New Zealanders are not particularly comfortable with being uncomfortable, something Dame Therese Walsh recently suggests directors should have more experience of.
Be prepared for when things go wrong: There needs to be policies and processes in place when co-chairing does not work. This is needed to avoid the chief executive playing the co-chairs off against each other or the co-chairs putting the chief executive in an untenable position.

At a broader level, the discussion highlighted some of the pros and cons of co-chairing, many of which reflect the guidance in the Four Pillars of Governance Best Practice:

Pros of co-chairing

There are a range of benefits from the co-chairing approach which include:

Diverse perspectives and skills

Co-chairing can leverage the unique skills and perspectives of two individuals, enhancing the board's leadership and decision-making quality. Each chair can bring their expertise to bear on different issues, fostering a more balanced and comprehensive approach to governance. This aligns with the Four Pillars which emphasises the importance of diversity and complementary skill sets for effective board culture.

Workload distribution

Sharing the responsibilities of the chair role can prevent burnout and ensure a more manageable workload. This can be particularly beneficial in large or complex organizations where the demands on the chair can be substantial. The Four Pillars highlights the need for effective workload management and balanced agendas for board meetings.

Enhanced continuity and succession planning

Having two chairs can provide continuity of leadership, especially in times of transition. One co-chair can ensure stability while the other is transitioning into or out of the role, aiding in smooth succession planning and knowledge transfer. Effective succession planning is crucial.

Improved decision-making

Co-chairs can discuss and debate issues more thoroughly before presenting them to the board, leading to more thought-out and well-rounded decisions. This dual leadership can promote a culture of constructive challenge and diversity of thought.

Increased availability

With two chairs, there is a greater likelihood that at least one chair will be available for urgent matters or to represent the board at external events, ensuring consistent and effective leadership presence.

Cons of co-chairing

Co-chairing is not a one-way street to blissful governance. The pitfalls and negatives associated with this co-chairing approach include:

Potential for conflict

Differences in opinions, leadership styles, or priorities between the co-chairs can lead to conflict and hamper effective decision-making. It is crucial that co-chairs have a strong working relationship and clear communication to mitigate this risk.

Role ambiguity

Without clear delineation of responsibilities, there can be confusion over who is accountable for what. This can lead to inefficiencies or duplication of efforts. A well-defined division of labour and clear communication channels are essential to avoid these pitfalls.

Slower decision-making

Having two chairs can sometimes slow down the decision-making process as they may need to consult each other before taking action. This can be a disadvantage in situations requiring swift decisions.

Increased coordination needs

More time and effort are required to ensure that both chairs are aligned and that communication between them is effective. This need for constant coordination can add a layer of complexity to board operations. Effective communication and coordination are crucial.

Potential dilution of authority

The presence of two chairs can sometimes dilute the authority of each, particularly in the eyes of other board members or external stakeholders. Ensuring both chairs have clearly defined and respected roles is vital to maintaining their effectiveness.

Difficult to find one chair, let alone two

Many organisations struggle to find a chair at all. Co-chairing means two chairs need to be found, and they have to be able to make a co-chairing arrangement work. This can be difficult, if not impossible for many organisations, even if they think co-chair board leadership is a good idea.

Making co-chairing work

The co-chairing conference panel were clear that they thought co-chairing could work. However, it required some specific work and action to do so.

Clear structure and roles

To maximise the benefits and minimise the drawbacks, it's crucial to have a clear structure and defined roles for each co-chair. This includes setting boundaries on decision-making authority and ensuring transparent communication channels.

Effective communication

Regular and open communication between co-chairs is essential to ensure alignment on goals and strategies and to address any emerging issues promptly.

Strong working relationship

The success of a co-chair arrangement significantly depends on the relationship between the co-chairs. They need to trust and respect each other, working collaboratively towards the board’s objectives.

A final reflection

Co-chairing is likely to be extremely attractive as a governance approach in some settings. The pros and cons, as well as the conditions to make this work that the panel also highlighted, are very exacting. Co-chair arrangement may have benefits, but these arrangements are clearly not for the feint-hearted!

AI assisted with the writing of this article.

Want to hear more and get insights like these? Registrations are now open for the IoD 2025 Annual Leadership Conference 11 – 12 September 2025: Register now!