Co-CEOs can make leadership work when the arrangement fits the company, the leaders agree on how decisions get made, and employees know whom to approach. There is no single operating model: in a 2022 GeekWire feature, one startup pair shared most work, another divided functions, and a third split responsibilities after a merger. Each approach brought its own coordination demands.
What changed at Salesforce in 2022?
The immediate news peg was Salesforce co-CEO Bret Taylor’s decision to step down in December 2022, leaving Marc Benioff as the company’s sole CEO at that time. GeekWire reported possible tension over outside obligations as context, attributing that account to other reporting; it was not established as the reason for Taylor’s departure. GeekWire’s December 2022 feature used the change to examine how startup leadership pairs divided the job.
Salesforce had an earlier, distinct co-CEO period. In its 2019 proxy filing, the company described Benioff and Keith Block as co-CEOs, with Benioff focused on vision, architecture, products, marketing, and culture, and Block on sales execution, customer engagement, finance, professional services, and support. Salesforce characterized the arrangement as formalizing a working relationship that had developed over time. That filing describes the Benioff–Block arrangement, not the later Benioff–Taylor period. Salesforce’s 2019 proxy statement.
Three ways startup co-CEOs divided the work
| Company and leaders | How the arrangement began | How work was divided |
|---|---|---|
| SkyKick: Todd Schwartz and Evan Richman | Long-standing partnership, formed before founding the company | High overlap: they worked on many of the same issues and attended customer, employee, and investor meetings together |
| Forum3: Andy Sack and Adam Brotman | More than 20 years of acquaintance and complementary prior experience | Functional split: Brotman worked on product management; Sack handled communications, financing, and marketing |
| Green Canopy NODE: Aaron Fairchild and Bec Chapin | Co-leadership after Seattle-based NODE combined with Portland’s Green Canopy | Functional split: Chapin focused on product; Fairchild on finance and partnerships |
SkyKick: shared work and long history
Schwartz and Richman met at MIT Sloan, entered business-plan competitions together, and then worked for seven years as product managers at Microsoft before founding SkyKick. Schwartz said dividing leadership did not make sense given their shared background. In the 2022 account, they described working in the same room on the same problems and attending meetings together.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
- we like to ship out right away
Schwartz credited similar values, trust, respect, aligned goals, and a willingness to engage in heated discussions with helping the partnership. He cautioned that co-leadership is not for every pair: “Any great business partnership is like a personal relationship or marriage. You just gotta have that relationship chemistry. And I would say, it’s not for everyone.” GeekWire.
He also argued that establishing shared leadership from the outset can make it easier for employees to accept: “If you start from scratch, then the exception becomes the norm,” he said. “And everyone is comfortable with it.” This is his account of the company’s experience, not a guarantee that starting with co-CEOs eliminates confusion.
Rank #2
Forum3: separate functions, shared responsibility
Sack and Brotman’s long acquaintance and complementary experience preceded their launch of Forum3 together. Their division gave each leader a functional area, but Sack acknowledged that boundaries could confuse employees. They treated their roles as separate departments and regularly reconciled different opinions, a process he said could slow decisions.
“We might be a little slower in our decision making. But I think in general, our decisions are better,” Sack told GeekWire. He also described the arrangement as revisable: “We decided that if it doesn’t work for the company, or for us at any point, we’ll change it. That’s how we think about it.” The value of that option is practical: a leadership structure need not be permanent if responsibilities or company needs change.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsRank #3
Green Canopy NODE: leadership after a merger
Fairchild and Chapin became co-CEOs after Seattle-based NODE combined with Portland’s Green Canopy. Their product-versus-finance-and-partnerships split was one part of bringing two businesses together; they also had to navigate differences in rank and power. Fairchild described the challenge in personal terms: “I’m a classic white male paradigm real estate guy,” he said. “You’re bringing two different world views together into a very intense working relationship.”
Fairchild said the company brought in an executive coach specializing in power-rank dynamics, who later worked with members of the C-suite. That is an example of a company using outside help to address a specific leadership challenge, not evidence that coaching is required for every co-CEO pair. GeekWire.
What helps co-CEO arrangements work?
The cases point to operating conditions worth making explicit. The Berkeley California Management Review discussion also highlights prior working relationships, governance, role definition, organizational acceptance, and the risk of slower decisions under pressure. These are management considerations, not a proven formula for success. California Management Review’s analysis of co-CEOs.
- Define ownership. If leaders divide functions, specify which decisions belong to each person and which require both. An org chart can show reporting lines, but teams also need a usable route for questions that cross those lines.
- Set a disagreement process. Agree on how unresolved disputes get settled, who has the final call in an urgent situation, and when to involve a board or another agreed-upon decision-maker. Without that clarity, deliberation can become delay.
- Communicate the arrangement to the organization. Employees, investors, and other stakeholders need to understand the split and know where to take a question. Separate departmental ownership, as Forum3 described, can help, but it must be clear at the boundaries too.
- Check alignment, not just credentials. Complementary skills are useful, but the leaders must also be able to work through conflict, share goals, and accept each other’s authority. Similar values or risk appetite may help, but neither substitutes for explicit decision rights.
- Review whether the structure still fits. Changes in company size, workload, or the leaders’ responsibilities can make an earlier division less useful. Sack’s willingness to change the model if it stopped working illustrates the value of treating it as a design choice rather than a permanent identity.
What are the costs and potential benefits?
The tradeoff is not simply “two perspectives are better than one.” Co-leadership can distribute a demanding workload and bring complementary experience to major choices, but it also requires coordination. If both leaders need to weigh in on routine decisions, meetings and reconciliation can consume time. If their responsibilities are divided without clear boundaries, colleagues may not know who is accountable.
Best Value
GeekWire reported Sack’s estimate that fewer than 10 of more than 500 startup pitches he had heard involved two chief executives. That is one investor’s personal estimate, not a count of the startup market. The feature also cited a Harvard Business Review analysis, reporting that 87 of 2,200 companies in the S&P 1200 and Russell 1000 were led by co-CEOs from 1996 to 2020. The same cited analysis reported average annual shareholder returns of 9.5% for those co-CEO companies versus 6.9% for each company’s relevant index, and an average co-CEO tenure of about five years, on par with average sole-CEO tenure. These historical, observational figures do not show that co-CEOs caused higher returns. Harvard Business Review analysis, as cited by GeekWire.
How the model looks in a later founder account
In an April 2, 2026 company-authored account, Parbery founders Kylie Burnett and Nick Chapman said they adopted co-CEO titles the previous year as the firm matured and responsibilities grew. They described assigning areas according to capability, interest, and goals, clarifying points of contact in the org chart, and communicating frequently. Burnett summarized their approach: “The key learnings have simply been to communicate, communicate, communicate, and when you think you are communicating enough, communicate some more.” The founders also cited a similar risk appetite. These are their own reflections, not an independent evaluation of outcomes. Parbery’s April 2026 account.
Taken together, the examples show that the title alone does not define the arrangement. The important design choices are whether the leaders overlap or divide the work, how they resolve disagreements, and whether everyone else can understand the answers.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
