What I Learned Leading as a Co-CEO for a Year

Starting a software development company with multiple co-founders brought many lessons, but one of the most unexpected was our experience with rotating leadership roles. While this model isn’t ideal for every organization, it significantly reshaped how we viewed leadership development and team dynamics.

Initially, like many startups founded by friends, we adopted an overly democratic approach to decision-making. Every major choice required consensus among all co-founders. While this seemed fair in theory, in practice it led to gridlock. What should have been straightforward decisions turned into drawn-out debates, and time-sensitive actions were delayed due to the need for universal agreement.

According to venture capital research, about 65% of startups fail because of internal conflicts among co-founders. Additionally, solo founders are 2.6 times more likely to succeed than teams with three or more members. We lived through this firsthand when market shifts demanded swift action, yet our structure prevented us from responding decisively.

To solve this issue, we came up with an unconventional idea: rotate the CEO role every three months. Each co-founder would take turns leading with full authority to make final calls and break deadlocks.

Key Insights From Rotating Leadership

Hidden Talents Surface Naturally

One of the biggest surprises was discovering abilities we didn’t know existed within our team. Our most technically skilled founder—who rarely spoke during client meetings—excelled at understanding customer needs once given the chance to lead client interactions. Another co-founder, known mainly for creative work, revealed strong operational instincts when tasked with process improvements.

This aligns with findings from DDI’s 2025 Global Leadership Forecast, which shows that only 20% of HR professionals feel confident about their leadership pipeline, and 83% expect to need new leadership capabilities within five years. In a traditional hierarchy, these hidden talents might never have surfaced.

Improved Decision-Making

Interestingly, rotating leadership led to more balanced strategic outcomes over time. Each leader brought different priorities—some focused on growth, others on efficiency—but because each tenure was limited to three months, there was a sense of urgency that kept everyone focused on execution rather than theoretical planning.

Greater Empathy and Team Cohesion

Team members who had criticized past decisions began to appreciate the complexity of leadership once they were in charge themselves. This hands-on experience fostered empathy, reduced internal friction, and strengthened overall unity.

A Structured Approach to Rotation

We established clear guidelines to ensure the system worked effectively:

• The rotating leader had final say on daily operations, quarterly goals, and conflict resolution.
• Major structural changes still required group consensus.
• At the end of each rotation, outgoing leaders held a formal handoff meeting to brief their successor on ongoing initiatives and unresolved issues.
• After each term, structured feedback was given to promote accountability and continuous improvement.

When It Worked Best

The rotation system was particularly effective during our first year. It allowed us to: * Discover skills not reflected in job titles * Avoid locking people into permanent roles too early * Build leadership capacity across the founding team * Reduce ego-driven conflicts by giving everyone a turn to lead

Eventually, as the company matured and individual strengths became clearer, we transitioned into more permanent roles. Some co-founders preferred specialized leadership positions, while others found satisfaction in individual contributor roles. The rotation period gave everyone space to discover their preferences organically.

Considerations for Other Teams

This model requires specific conditions to be successful: * Strong trust and personal relationships among co-founders * Shared core values despite differing leadership styles * Flexibility in direction during the early stages * Commitment to the process even when some rotations aren’t perfect

It may not work well for companies with external investors expecting stable leadership or those with complex, established operations.

Applying Rotation Beyond Startups

Even in traditional organizations, elements of rotational leadership can be beneficial: * Cross-departmental leadership assignments for high-potential employees * Rotating project leadership to build management skills at various levels * Temporary leadership roles during crises to uncover hidden talent

McKinsey & Company research suggests that companies with robust leadership development programs are 2.4 times more likely to meet performance targets. Thoughtful use of rotation can accelerate leadership growth.

Final Takeaways

Our 9–12 month rotation phase was just the right amount of time to explore potential without creating instability. Some roles—especially those involving client relationships—are harder to rotate than internal-facing ones. However, the experience taught us that management skills can be developed, and people often surprise themselves when given the opportunity.

For young, committed founding teams, experimenting with different leadership models is worth considering—not just for the CEO role, but also in sales, HR, and technical leadership. Just be sure to apply thoughtful judgment and test only those alternatives where you see real potential.

Ultimately, our experiment reinforced a key truth: there’s no single correct way to structure leadership in a startup. Sometimes, the best path forward is the one that helps your team figure out what actually works.