Guide · Assessment
Updated: 24 July 2026
Is shared leadership worth it – and what do you tell the sceptics? An honest weigh-up: six advantages with a condition, six disadvantages with a countermeasure, plus arguments for the internal debate.
Verdict
At a glanceShared leadership brings better decisions, cover and access to people who don’t want full-time leadership – but only when roles and decision rules are clear. Without that clarity the disadvantages outweigh: more coordination, unclear responsibility and the risk of being played off against each other.
Six advantages – each with a condition
- Relief at the top – only if the load is truly shared, not carried twice.
- Better decisions via four eyes – only if both are allowed to disagree.
- Access to talent without a full-time wish – only if part-time leadership is accepted in-house.
- Cover and reliability – only if both are informed enough to step in for each other.
- Role-model effect for work-life balance – only if the model is truly lived, not just communicated.
- Broader skill profile in one role – only if the profiles complement rather than overlap.
Six disadvantages – each with a countermeasure
- More coordination. Countermeasure: fixed handover routines instead of constant coordination.
- Unclear responsibility externally. Countermeasure: clearly communicate who is the contact for what.
- Being played off by the team. Countermeasure: a unified line, no external contradictions.
- Cost question with two people. Countermeasure: split shares rather than double, weigh the benefit.
- Dependence on the fit. Countermeasure: invest in the collaboration early, not only in conflict.
- Difficult re-hire when one leaves. Countermeasure: set handover and succession rules in advance.
What the criticism hits – and what it doesn’t
Justified is the criticism of coordination effort and cost – both are real and must be planned. Based on a misunderstanding, though, is the charge that shared leadership is „indecisive“: with a clear decision structure, decisions aren’t made more slowly but more soundly. And „then no one is responsible“ only applies when roles are poorly defined.
Argument aid for internal use
Five typical objections from sceptics – with a factual answer each:
- „Two bosses, double cost.“ → Often shared shares; the benefit (cover, retention) stands against it.
- „Then no one decides.“ → They do – provided the final decision is arranged.
- „Everything takes longer.“ → Only without structure. With clear rules, two don’t decide slower.
- „The team is confused.“ → Only if it isn’t communicated who’s responsible for what.
- „It’s just a trend.“ → It’s a concrete answer to skill shortages and changing expectations.
Frequently asked questions
Do advantages or disadvantages outweigh?
It depends solely on whether roles and decision rules are clear. With clarity the advantages clearly outweigh; without it the balance tips.
Is shared leadership more expensive?
Not necessarily. Often shares are split rather than doubled. And a real benefit stands against the cost.
For whom is shared leadership not worth it?
For organisations without a real trigger, without management backing or without willingness to touch structures.
How do I convince my management?
With this argument aid and an honest cost-benefit calculation. The roadmap shows the approach.
Amrit Rescheneder
Amrit Rescheneder helps organisations and leadership tandems build shared leadership that works. She led in a job-sharing model herself for years – after 15 years of leadership responsibility in banking. She knows shared leadership from practice, not from textbooks.