As organizations confront increasing complexity and global collaboration, leadership models are evolving. At Accountability Lab, our three Co-CEOs reflect on what it takes to build a shared leadership structure.

Leadership in a changing sector

Leadership in the world of civil society is changing. Today’s leaders face increasing funding uncertainty, political polarization, growing operational demands, and increasingly global teams – while working hard to remain closely connected to the communities they serve.

As teams become more global, partnerships grow more complex, and expectations around accountability and transparency continue to rise,  social impact sector organizations are questioning whether traditional leadership structures still reflect the realities of their work. There is growing recognition that relying on a single leader may not be the most sustainable – or impactful – way to navigate this complexity and deliver meaningful change.

At Accountability Lab, these questions emerged within the context of our translocal network of independent Labs working across multiple countries. Each Lab is locally rooted, with its own leadership, teams, and programming, while remaining connected through a shared mission and collaborative governance structure. This model allows solutions to emerge from local contexts that complement regional and global learning and partnerships.

This structure has created a leadership environment that is inherently distributed, requiring coordination, trust, and shared decision-making across geographies and cultures. Accountability Lab Global, the US-based entity focused primarily on advocacy and cross-network coordination, began exploring whether its own leadership structure should better reflect the collaborative nature of the network itself.

That reflection ultimately led to a shift from a single-CEO structure to a shared leadership model, with three Co-CEOs stewarding the organization together: Blair Glencorse, Cheri-Leigh Erasmus, and Jean Scrimgeour.

Each leader brings distinct areas of expertise to the role. Blair focuses primarily on partnerships, fundraising, and external engagement across the network. Cheri-Leigh leads major programming, emerging technology initiatives, and strategic innovation. Jean oversees risk, systems, finance, and operational oversight.

The transition was not symbolic or trend-driven. It emerged from board-level conversations, organizational growth, and a recognition that leadership itself needed to evolve alongside the organization. However, equally important was the partnership of the broader team to embrace this change.

Why co-leadership?

Blair describes Accountability Lab’s structure as “a tripartite model” through which three CEOs work together. While each leader maintains areas of primary responsibility, the three also “make collective decisions on the direction of the organization as a whole.”

Jean explains that these workstreams were developed collaboratively with the board when the structure was introduced in 2023. Each leader maintains defined responsibilities aligned with their expertise and preferences, but the structure remains intentionally flexible. “While responsibilities are clearly defined,” she explains, “we make joint decisions on critical strategic issues.”

For Cheri-Leigh, the shift toward co-leadership reflects the growing complexity of nonprofit leadership itself. “It is impossible for one leader to have all the skills required to steer an organization, raise funds, bolster the organization’s public profile, and think and grow it strategically,” she says.

At the same time, she emphasizes that co-leadership requires more than redistributing responsibilities. “The whole organization needs to think about leadership and hierarchy in a different way,” she explains. “You cannot simply fit an old, dated culture into a new mold.”

Blair also sees co-leadership as a response to the broader pressures shaping the sector.

“Perhaps counter-intuitively, it is during times of crisis – including the political and economic upheaval we see globally today – that the co-leadership model can make decision-making quicker and more effective.”

Jean agrees that the demands placed on nonprofit leaders have expanded dramatically. In what she describes as a broader polycrisis environment, leaders are increasingly expected to operate across finance, strategy, communications, advocacy, programming, and partnerships simultaneously – a situation she believes is ultimately unsustainable for an individual leader.

Challenging misconceptions

Because co-leadership remains relatively uncommon in the nonprofit sector, the leaders often encounter misconceptions about how the model functions. One assumption is that decision-making becomes slower or more complicated. Blair’s experience has been the opposite. “I have really valued having Jean and Cheri as Co-CEOs to ideate with and brainstorm ways forward,” he explains. “It improves the decisions themselves and prevents me from second-guessing the results.”

Another misconception concerns accountability. Critics sometimes assume that shared leadership diffuses responsibility. In practice, Blair notes, the organization maintains individual performance indicators that connect to collective goals. “We have individual KPIs that add up to collective organizational goals,” he says. “That ensures we can track how each of us is contributing to shared outcomes.”

Cheri also points to a more subtle and troubling assumption that sometimes emerges in conversations about co-leadership. “There is a pervasive and problematic misconception that co-leadership is a ‘soft landing’ for people who couldn’t have been CEOs on their own,” she explains – whether because of gender, race, age, or other perceived barriers. “That simply isn’t true,” she adds. “The model reflects a deliberate leadership choice, not a compromise.”

Jean has encountered another common reaction. “When people hear there are three leaders, they often assume the workload must be lighter,” she says. “But in reality, we are able to go deeper into issues and engage more thoroughly with complex challenges.” Blair also reflects that the structure has changed how the team thinks about efficiency. “I’m not sure we are necessarily doing more as a result of the Co-CEO model,” he notes. “It may be that we are doing less – but doing it more efficiently, because the structure ensures early buy-in for decisions.”

How it works in practice

In practice, the co-leadership model at Accountability Lab relies on a combination of clearly defined roles and continuous communication.

The three leaders maintain what they often refer to as “swim lanes” – areas of responsibility where each takes primary leadership. Within those domains, many day-to-day decisions are made independently. Jean, for example, leads risk, financial systems, and operational oversight. Major financial decisions, however, are discussed collectively.

Blair describes the overall decision-making process as largely consensus-driven.

The leadership team holds formal check-ins two to three times a week, while ongoing communication happens informally throughout the day.

Importantly, consensus does not mean uniform agreement. “I think it’s important to note that we don’t have to agree on everything,” Cheri explains. “Not only is that okay – it’s actually good. It moves us forward. But how we disagree and continue to support each other is critical.”

Jean notes that many decisions emerge through ongoing interaction rather than formal meetings. “Many of our decisions are made in the hundreds of informal interactions we have with one another during the week,” she says. 

Specialist leadership, shared stewardship

One strength of the co-CEO model is the ability to draw on distinct areas of expertise across the leadership team while maintaining shared responsibility for the organization as a whole. Blair notes that the three leaders have worked with the same leadership coach for several years, using tools such as the Instinctive Drives assessment to better understand how each person approaches decisions and leadership challenges.

For Cheri, that clarity has been essential. “We know each other’s strengths and positionality quite well,” she explains. “We also know who has the best instincts and experience related to a particular area of work or decision – and we trust each other’s skills.”

Jean reflects that the process has required the leadership team to become more intentional about understanding their individual contributions. “We are all capable of doing many of the same things,” she says. “But we’ve had to become clearer about what each of us is uniquely excellent at – not just what we can do, but what we do best.” That clarity allows leadership responsibilities to shift when necessary without competition or hesitation. 

Trust, accountability, and culture

While much discussion around co-leadership focuses on executives or boards, another factor has been equally important: the trust of the broader team. When the transition occurred, Blair had established himself as an effective and respected founder and CEO for over a decade. The new leadership model ran the risk that staff would continue to defer primarily to him as a leader. Instead,  with support from coaching and open communication through the process, the team embraced the transition and engaged with the model in a meaningful way. 

Co-leadership also functions as an internal accountability mechanism. “We are accountable to each other,” Blair explains. “Each of us holds the others in check and moderates or validates decisions.”

The transition also required close collaboration with Accountability Lab’s board. “We worked closely with our Board on the design and implementation of the co-leadership model,” Blair says. “They asked us a lot of hard questions, and as a result, we developed robust guiding documents to help us make the transition.”

Cheri adds that the leadership transition coach played a big role in supporting the co-leaders to document exactly how responsibilities and decision-making processes would function in practice. “We also brought in another leader who had already gone through a transition to co-leadership,” she explains. “That allowed the board to hear a practical perspective on both the pros and cons.”

Building the right leadership partnership

For organizations considering a co-leadership structure, identifying the right leaders is critical.

Blair believes this process often works best when it evolves organically within an organization.

“I do think it is difficult to hire directly into a co-leadership model,” he says. “It tends to work best when co-leaders grow up through the organization together.”

At the same time, the qualities required are less about technical skills than about shared values.

“We are all able to learn new skills,” Blair explains. “What matters most is cultural alignment and commitment to how the organization works.” Cheri agrees. “It’s about much more than replacing skills,” she says. “It’s trust, work chemistry, and shared vision.”

Jean emphasizes that trust is not simply beneficial in this model – it is essential. “Unlike recruiting for a sole CEO, which is usually managed by the board, hiring for a co-CEO should essentially be the responsibility of the existing CEO,” she explains. The success of the model depends not only on individual capability but also on the strength of relationships among leaders.

A model – not the model

Across their reflections, Blair, Cheri, and Jean are careful not to present co-leadership as a universal solution – or as a structure that removes the hard work of leadership itself.

“Co-leadership is not for the faint of heart,” Jean says. But when the right conditions exist – trust, clarity, communication, and shared values – it can fundamentally change how leadership is practiced.

Blair recalls advice from an early mentor that continues to shape his thinking. “The best thing you can do with power,” he says, “is give it away.” That philosophy has also been shaped by his experiences outside the workplace. “Having a small daughter has definitely pushed me to think of others first as much as I can,” he reflects. “My family has taught me that time with them is precious. Co-leadership has allowed me to spend more time with them, which has been incredible.”

For Cheri, personal experiences have also influenced how she approaches leadership and work.

“I derive a lot of pleasure from my work,” she says. “It’s a very important part of my life. I try to lead with curiosity, kindness, compassion, and empathy – and because I bring that to the table, I want to help build a workplace that offers the same to others.” In recent years, she notes, her relationship to time has shifted as well. “Family illness changed how I think about time,” she explains. “I don’t want to waste it anymore. I think that has made me more direct in my thinking and self-expression.”

Jean reflects on how the shared leadership structure has also changed her relationship with responsibility. “I don’t have to be everything to everyone all the time,” she says – a pressure many nonprofit leaders experience in traditional single-CEO roles.

Across their experiences, the three leaders have found that sharing leadership changes not only how organizations function, but how leadership itself is experienced. At Accountability Lab, the move to a Co-CEO structure did more than redistribute responsibilities. It reshaped how leadership operates in practice. Authority is shared. Decisions are strengthened through dialogue. Responsibility shifts from being carried by one individual to being held collectively. In a sector increasingly defined by complexity, that shift may prove to be one of the most important leadership lessons of all.

Naseera Noor-Mahomed