When Two Lead as One: Co-Leadership in Membership Organisations

The Scottish Greens’ announcement of a new co-leadership team caught the headlines last week. Whilst is may seem like just another political change, for anyone interested in governance and membership organisations, it was also a reminder of a bigger question: can two people really share the top job successfully?

In membership bodies the idea is not unheard of. Boards sometimes experiment with co-chairs, or divide leadership between two chief executives. The logic is appealing. It promises diversity of perspective, a broader reach into different parts of the membership, and, perhaps most attractive of all, a sense of democracy at the very top. Why invest authority in a single figure when you can embody partnership?

And yet, the reality is more complicated. Co-leadership is a model that both tempts and traps. It can extend reach, or it can confuse responsibility. It can symbolise inclusivity, or it can descend into factionalism.

Why Co-Leadership Attracts

The appeal of co-leadership in membership organisations is easy to understand. These organisations serve diverse and sometimes competing interests: industry segments, professional groups, regional chapters, or ideological wings. The notion that two leaders can represent a broader spectrum of members feels compelling. One leader might speak naturally to a younger, reform-minded constituency; the other might resonate with established professionals or more cautious voices. Together, they can offer reassurance that no single faction dominates.

Another attraction lies in capacity. Leading a membership organisation is demanding. Leaders must balance governance, strategy, policy influence, and external representation, while also sustaining the trust and motivation of members and volunteers. Sharing that workload between two people can spread the burden, reduce burnout, and allow each to play to their strengths. One may be a natural strategist, another a gifted communicator; one may thrive in technical detail, the other in external advocacy.

Finally, co-leadership has symbolic value. In an age that prizes collaboration and inclusivity, appointing two leaders can send a message that the organisation rejects “strong man” models in favour of partnership. Particularly in membership contexts, where legitimacy rests on consent and collective purpose, this symbolism can matter.

Where It Falters

For all these potential benefits, the risks of co-leadership are equally stark. The most obvious is accountability. Members want to know who is responsible when things go wrong. Staff want clarity on whose direction to follow. Boards need assurance that someone holds the reins. When two leaders share the top role, the danger is that responsibility is blurred. Decisions stall as both leaders weigh in. Disputes play out internally, then leak externally as inconsistent messaging.

Another problem lies in personality and style. Leadership is not only about tasks but about tone, i.e., how issues are framed, how people are motivated, how conflicts are handled. Two leaders with different instincts can unintentionally undermine each other. What one views as careful consensus-building, another sees as dithering. What one regards as bold innovation, the other experiences as reckless haste. These differences, when exposed to members, can erode confidence rapidly.

Factionalism is also a recurring risk. Membership organisations are rarely homogenous. If one co-leader is seen as representing “my side” and the other “theirs,” the organisation quickly becomes a battleground, with members aligning behind personalities rather than policies. What was intended to symbolise unity becomes a mechanism for deepening division.

Finally, governance structures often struggle to adapt. Constitutions, articles of association, and board protocols are usually written with a single chief executive or chair in mind. Inserting two at the top can create uncertainty about reporting lines, legal authority, and succession planning. Without deliberate adaptation, the whole framework strains under the weight of ambiguity.

Lessons From Elsewhere

We don't need to look far for examples. In the corporate world, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield famously built Ben & Jerry’s as co-founders and co-leaders. Their partnership worked because their strengths were complementary (Cohen as the creative force, Greenfield as the disciplined operator) and because they shared deep trust and a common vision. The model delivered growth, brand strength, and social mission without confusion.

Contrast that with Deutsche Bank’s experiment with dual chief executives. Intended to balance different skill sets and geographical markets, the partnership instead bred rivalry, muddled accountability, and uncertainty among investors and regulators. Eventually the arrangement collapsed, and the bank returned to a single CEO model.

Membership organisations can mirror these patterns. Professional bodies that have attempted co-chairs sometimes succeed, especially when they are explicit about dividing responsibilities, for instance, one chair overseeing governance, the other focusing on member engagement; but others have faltered when the arrangement was adopted primarily to satisfy internal politics rather than to serve organisational effectiveness. In those cases, the co-chairs spent more time negotiating with each other than leading the body forward.

Implications for Membership Organisations

Why does this matter so much for membership organisations? Because members are particularly sensitive to leadership signals. Unlike corporate shareholders, they are often active participants, volunteering time, serving on committees, and engaging in professional debates. They expect clarity about who is accountable. They notice when mixed messages emerge, and quickly lose trust if they believe leadership is paralysed by internal dispute.

Membership organisations also face constant pressure to demonstrate value. Every policy initiative, guidance note, or event is scrutinised by members who want assurance that their subscriptions are being well spent. In that environment, indecision or confusion at the top carries an immediate cost.

Members who feel frustrated or neglected do not wait long to express dissatisfaction, sometimes by withdrawing their membership altogether.

At the same time, these organisations often prize inclusivity and representation. They want to show that leadership reflects their broad base, not a narrow elite. That is the enduring tension: the symbolic appeal of co-leadership collides with the practical demand for clear accountability.

Making It Work

If co-leadership is to be tried, it needs careful design. Leaders must agree in advance where authority sits, how disagreements will be resolved, and how they will communicate with members and staff. Boards must adapt governance protocol to reflect the reality of two leaders rather than one. And members must be given confidence that the arrangement enhances, rather than dilutes, their voice.

Above all, co-leaders must demonstrate unity in public, even if they debate vigorously in private. Members can accept disagreement; what they cannot accept is inconsistency that leaves them unsure where the organisation stands.

The Scottish Greens may or may not demonstrate that co-leadership can work in practice, but their announcement is a useful reminder for the wider membership sector. Shared leadership is not a shortcut to inclusivity. It is a demanding model that requires clarity, trust, and discipline. Done well, it can harness complementary strengths and broaden reach. Done badly, it confuses, divides, and weakens.

For membership organisations, the lesson is clear: co-leadership should never be adopted simply to appease factions or to send a symbolic signal. It should be chosen only when it genuinely strengthens the organisation’s ability to serve its members, and when the structures and personalities involved are robust enough to make it more than a well-intentioned experiment.