How co-leadership helps us navigate a sector-wide crisis 

In January, executive orders to freeze all U.S. international development aid upended an already resource-strapped sector. Overnight, organizations that had spent decades building programs and partnerships found themselves facing existential questions and extremely difficult leadership challenges.  

At Accountability Lab, we found our co-leadership model gave us an unexpected advantage. Eighteen months earlier, when Blair Glencorse, Cheri-Leigh Erasmus, and I decided to transition from a traditional CEO structure to shared leadership, we couldn’t have predicted how profoundly this choice would shape our ability to navigate the crisis. Collaboration is one of the values the Lab is built upon. Along with integrity, innovation, humility, and practicality, these values guide all our thinking and programs. We continually hold ourselves accountable to them and encourage others to hold us accountable as well. So, what began as a natural next step for an organization built on collaboration became our most valuable asset. Here’s our story and four crucial lessons we learned about co-leading through uncertainty. 

1. Co-leadership helps us make faster, better decisions 

Conventional wisdom suggests having multiple decision makers creates bottlenecks. Our experience with co-leadership proved exactly the opposite. When the funding freeze hit, we needed to reassess budgets, manage our relationships and responsibilities with panicked stakeholders, reassure staff, and develop contingency plans—all at the same time. Under a traditional CEO model, the full burden would have fallen on one person’s shoulders. Under our collaborative framework, we divided those responsibilities according to our strengths. Blair, with his deep donor relationships, took the lead on funding conversations. Cheri-Leigh, our strategic thinker, focused on program adaptation. I handled operational adjustments and team communications. What might have taken weeks of deliberation under a single leader took us three days. And while we consulted one another constantly, co-leadership helped us gather information from our respective areas and move fast on critical issues. 

2. Co-leadership is built on trust and transparency 

Moving quickly is only possible with a foundation of trust and transparency, which is crucial to successful co-leadership. We reinforce that foundation consistently through regular meetings—both personal and professional—and by keeping one another in the loop on what we’re working on. This ensures we’re all up to speed, don’t need to second-guess one another, and can remain focused on our own areas of work. It also builds horizontal, peer-to-peer accountability, allowing us to delegate and move fast without friction. Perhaps most importantly, co-leadership helps build transparency throughout the organization. Staff reported feeling more secure because they could see how decisions were being made. None of this would have been possible without the greater collaborative leadership of supportive board members and the broad involvement of upper management in much of our decision making. 

3. Co-leadership helps us take bigger risks and recover faster

The freedom that comes with risk shared three ways allows us to be bolder—exploring creative solutions, leaning into our individual strengths, and tapping into each of our diverse networks. Co-leadership didn’t just stabilize us—it helped us innovate. We were able to gather and consolidate data, then worked with partners to develop and launch services to help support the ecosystem. As organizations consider coming together in different ways such as strategic partnerships and mergers, a co-leadership structure may also be an option. If implemented with care and intent, it can help organizations keep their identities and restore some of the stability lost over the past months—while also working with partners in constructive ways.  

4. Co-leadership isn’t a ‘soft option’ but a strength 

You may have heard the myth that shared leadership represents a diluted or “soft” approach to governance. In actuality, it has forced us to clarify our values, communicate consistently, and hold one another accountable—not just as an ethical imperative but for the success of the organization.  

We also invested in leadership coaching both for individual development and to strengthen our collective dynamic. This has helped us reimagine nonprofit leadership for a world that demands more, while still giving us space to live fulfilling personal lives. Since choosing co-leadership, we’ve taken sabbaticals, had children, and taken valuable time to recharge. Being able to pursue personal and professional goals knowing that the organization is well taken care of means we return to work with renewed vigor. 

Based on our experience, we’re convinced co-leadership can help strengthen nonprofits. It requires careful design and ongoing maintenance, but the benefits in speed, creativity, and resilience are significant. The question facing our sector is no longer whether alternative leadership models can work, but whether we can afford to keep relying on traditional structures that no longer meet today’s needs. 

Photo credit: Naseera Noor-Mahomed, Accountability Lab