By Kevin Quinn       kfq@rogers.com

An Update on ACCORD's "Co-Leaders"
In the last issue, we learned about ACCORD's new co-leadership structure. A literature review revealed that "co-leadership" is not just a convenience or practicality, but is also a highly successful way of meeting the demand for new forms of leadership in our organizations more broadly. Interviews with ACCORD's co-leaders, Duncan Holmes and Jo Ellen Logan, showed how their partnership worked so well. In this issue, we drill down into the co-leadership experience in a detailed interview with Duncan.

Duncan reflects on how it works at ACCORD and when it will and won't work in other organizations, and then provides some advice from the experience of the past year.

How is Co-Leadership Working

  KQ:   When we last talked, you emphasized the practical aspects of co-leadership, such as continuity. Is that still a big benefit?
  DH:   It certainly is. Let me give you an example. I've been traveling extensively lately - you'll recall that these frequent trips were what stopped me from considering taking on the leadership of ACCORD all alone. And it turned out that Jo Ellen was traveling too - but we had one day of overlap, and on that day we exchanged ideas and information. And one of us was in Toronto whenever there were meetings. From the ACCORD board point of view, we were available - despite two hectic travel schedules.

  KQ:   What are some of the other benefits?
  DH:   It provides a free sounding board. There are times before I respond to a question or an email-we say to each other "what do you think about this?" And it helps that Jo Ellen and I are such different people.

  KQ:   Different how? And how does that contribute to your partnership?
  DH:   Jo is a much faster responder than I am. I get an email and I think to myself "I want to think about that for a while." She on the other hand-perhaps because of her longer experience with ACCORD (she has more background and specifics-it's great!), or her personality type, can often make a quick response.

  KQ:   How have you been sharing duties?
  DH:   My first response is "it just happens." What seemed more important than role definitions was a conversation we had about principles: for example we are completely clear that we're going to be a member-driven organization. Once we made that clear to ourselves, then it was easy to notice when the Board or our administrator were

doing too much. With the principles clear, we could stop and ask ourselves, "Why are we recommending this?" We're also both conscious of testing "what we've always been doing" against our new principles.

  KQ:   In retrospect, have you specialized at all?
  DH:   Probably due to her history and assignments, Jo has taken Program and Membership issues-she was the Membership Coordinator, and later had Program.

When I'm here, I'm often the one who runs meetings unless I become conscious that I've had a few meetings in a row. She's a much stronger networker than I am. When we're looking for someone, she'll rhyme off two or three people she's talked to in the last few weeks!

The GIFT of Co-Leadership

  KQ:   So what's making this experience work, from your point of view?
  DH:   It promotes a leadership conversation that's difficult to have with yourself. For example, we made a conscious decision to elevate our leadership to a more strategic level to avoid being merely an administrative team.

We scheduled some time together to ask ourselves the big questions: are we ready as an organization for this or that. For example, should we mount a conference? Do we have the human resources to do that? We thought not, at present, but it was good to consider such things.

  KQ:   Do you feel these strategic conversations were prompted by the co-leadership structure?
  DH:   Yes. Having a partner in leadership seems to demand these dialogues-you have to tell the other person what you're doing anyway and it seems like the external voice is more powerful than your own conscience in asking "are we doing the right things?" Let me tell you, it's an absolute gift to have someone to talk with like this.

When Does Co-Leadership Work?

  KQ:   Duncan, you've had an extensive career in leadership. When do you feel co-leadership is most recommended? Any time when one person doesn't want to do the job?
  DH:   Not just any time with any one. The two people must honestly think: "there's some of this I just don't know. They do the thing differently than I would, yet it still works." Despite differences, the two people share common values, common methods, and a deep respect for the other person. They're aware of each other's strengths and tolerant of each other's weaknesses.

I learned this lesson myself watching others in my organization do things in ways I could or would not. I remember having rip-roaring arguments. Specifically, I'm very conscious of my own leadership style as being highly participative, using joint decision-making and consensus building. When I see someone else doing things more quickly, with less consultation, I feel challenged. What I have learned over the years is that this sometimes is called for.

So I've come to admire differences like that-and a good shared leadership team will embody just those kinds of differences that are respected by the other players.

When Does Co-Leadership NOT Work?

  KQ:   Conversely, what situations won't sustain co-leadership?
  DH:   In two situations. First, if the candidates don't see themselves as equals. When they don't respect each other's experience, viewpoint, or approach. When there's too much ego-a sense of "I have to lead." I had an experience long ago when I was a young member of a team of supposed equals. One of the members made it almost impossible to work together-constantly challenging and second-guessing me. If it happened today, I would have looked to my own centre and strength and asked this person "what's the real issue?" Without that respect and trust in differences, there's no opportunity for shared leadership.

Second, don't use shared leadership if single leadership will work just as well, if the organization or either of the co-leaders thinks it's not necessary. Don't share leadership just because someone thinks it's a noble idea; do it because it's necessary! It's just like teamwork-so many teams were created because it was the trendy thing to do. I've seen too many situations in which a team has spent five hours talking and getting frustrated, doing what I could have done in an hour. Let's not make the same mistakes with co-leadership. Use it only when necessary, but if it's necessary, be sure to use it.

Lessons of Experience

  KQ:   Does the experiment at ACCORD provide lessons you can share with others considering co-leadership?
  DH:   After our initial decision to share leadership, we should have had a conversation within the next month about direction. We were giving less corporate steerage than we are now. We may not have had the answers, but we could have started the answering. We roughed something out for the AGM, but it wasn't as thoughtful as we'd both have preferred.

Now I realize that the shared leadership situation is a wonderful opportunity to do strategic planning as a team of two!

  KQ:   What's the next leadership challenge for you, Jo Ellen, and ACCORD?
  DH:   One question is drawing my interest-how do we as a group learn what we individually know? How do we create a forum to decide what experiences from our individual practices are relevant and then learn about these experiences together. That would help me feel we're involved in creative change. We're all learning so much, how can we reap it? That would be pushing the edge of what it would mean to be a true learning community.