For a co-CEO model to succeed, structured feedback for aligned strategy is non-negotiable. Disciplined feedback loops prevent strategic drift, align leadership, and maintain organizational agility. Boards that formalize this process unlock the significant advantages of dual leadership, ensuring the partnership is calibrated by neutral data, not ad-hoc conversations.
Build a feedback engine, not ad-hoc chats
Informal critiques often devolve into power struggles. The solution is a structured feedback cycle managed by a neutral facilitator who ensures anonymity and synthesizes data. According to an HBR article, new co-CEOs should engage in this process every six to nine months, shifting to annual health checks after two years. To supplement these formal reviews, digital pulse tools and real-time dashboards allow for rapid course correction based on continuous sentiment analysis, a practice detailed in this CEO Hangout guide.
A structured feedback system provides co-CEOs with objective, multi-level insights on their joint performance and strategic alignment. This formal process, managed by a neutral party, prevents the leadership dyad from drifting apart, balances individual egos, and ensures the organization benefits from unified, decisive, and agile top-level guidance.
Source perspectives from every altitude
Effective feedback programs avoid narrow sampling by collecting quantitative and qualitative data from three crucial tiers: C-suite peers, high-potential managers, and the board. This multi-level approach uncovers systemic issues, not just personal complaints. Brief, consistent surveys track progress on key indicators like unified messaging and decision speed, while comments identify blind spots. While data is vital, psychological safety is paramount. As McKinsey insight confirms, candid top-team dialogue correlates with superior financial performance, underscoring the facilitator’s role in fostering mutual learning over blame.
Turn insights into observable shifts
To be effective, feedback must translate into action. Co-CEOs should commit to two or three observable behavioral experiments based on the findings, using a public tracker shared with the board to ensure accountability. A recommended cadence is:
- Week 0: Facilitator delivers synthesized report to each leader individually, then jointly.
- Week 2: Pair agrees on actions, assigns metrics, and informs direct reports.
- Week 10: Mid-cycle pulse survey checks momentum.
- Week 24: Full reassessment feeds the next summit.
This structured rhythm makes progress tangible and prevents regression, especially during high-pressure periods.
Embed board oversight without micromanagement
The board’s role is oversight, not micromanagement. Directors should receive a concise summary after each feedback cycle detailing strengths, risks, and action plans. This promotes transparency without intruding on the co-CEOs’ autonomy. Integrating feedback progress into performance scorecards alongside financial metrics reinforces that leadership culture and business results are inextricably linked. Ultimately, dual leadership thrives when a codified feedback process – defining who gathers data, how it’s reviewed, and the resulting actions – amplifies the leaders’ complementary skills, allowing them to focus on shaping the company’s future.
How often should co-CEOs formally review their partnership?
Every 6-9 months for the first two years, then annually.
Boards treat these “health checks” as a core performance metric; missing one is a red flag to investors.
The external facilitator gathers confidential multi-level input (C-suite, direct reports, board) and blends quantitative scores with open comments before sharing a single, anonymized summary with each CEO. This cadence keeps the dyad calibrated in fast-moving markets without turning feedback into a daily distraction.
Who should run the feedback process?
A neutral third party – typically the chief learning officer, senior HR leader, or an outside advisor – not the co-CEOs themselves and not the board chair.
The facilitator’s only mandate is “what is best for the company,” which prevents power plays and preserves psychological safety.
When Spotify formalized its co-CEO structure in 2024 it embedded this rule from day one, helping Gustav Söderström and Alex Norström stay aligned on product and business tracks.
What questions reveal whether the model is working?
Surveys ask stakeholders to rate five-point agreement on statements such as:
– “The co-CEOs resolve decisions quickly and transparently.”
– “They present a unified front to the organization.”
– “Each leader challenges the other’s ideas to improve strategy.”
Answers are sliced by level; big gaps between board and staff scores flag hidden friction.
Results are tied to company OKRs, not individual popularity, ensuring feedback drives strategic outcomes rather than personal praise.
How do high-performing co-CEOs turn feedback into faster execution?
They refresh their rules of engagement after every cycle: who owns which data streams, how tie-breaks work, and what escalation path avoids stalemates.
Netflix’s former co-CEO pair used this method to split content and technology spheres while keeping a joint weekly “decision log,” cutting average product-launch cycle time by 18 %.
Clear decision rights plus documented disagreements let them stress-test ideas in real time without reopening settled issues.
Does the model actually move the financial needle?
A 2025 HBR study of 87 public companies with co-CEOs (1996-2020) shows average annual shareholder returns of 9.5 % versus 6.9 % for matched solo-CEO firms; 60 % of co-CEO companies outperformed their sector index.
Tenure averaged five years – identical to solo CEOs – proving shared leadership can be sustainable and value-accretive when feedback keeps the partnership in sync.
