Despite its significant potential to bridge and integrate, co-leadership is known to be fragile – a graphic in an organigram that doesn’t transmit reality or illustrate the paralysis of tensions. Moments of transition, including changes in co-leaders, render the arrangement particularly vulnerable. Yet, we know little about how to maintain the stability of co-leadership arrangements. This study aims to explore that shortcoming in the context of frequent co-leader transitions.
Data was collected during a longitudinal qualitative study of co-leadership – the sharing of a leadership role by two individuals – in a military healthcare organization, where a context of frequent personnel rotations gives rise to almost yearly leadership transition events. An inductive analysis of 32 semistructured interviews with tactical-level co-leaders revealed three main factors contributing to the stability of this model, which has been in place for over 20 years.
In this case, the stability of co-leadership is rooted in three elements. First, similar structural arrangements and traditions are widely practiced and accepted within the field. Second, there is a common understanding that roles and relationships are negotiated on a temporary basis. Third, patterns of distancing contribute to maintaining the existing state.
The ongoing replacement of leaders in an established co-leadership structure made for a unique and extreme case of instability, revealing the paradox of stability: in this case, the stability of the arrangement derives from the instability of its membership and from a shared view of its inner workings as a temporary modus operandi.
