Human organizations typically have a single accountable role that leads them.  This applies whether the group focus is political, corporate, social, charitable and so on. 

The concept of having one leader accountable, that is the place where the buck stops, is an endemic design that repeats itself through the ages. 

Co-Leaders

A simple definition of leader is the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.  Significantly by definition we consider the term leader to be singular.  

This is a simple way of defining accountability and limiting our own responsibility.  When something bad happens we can point to the leader saying “They are in charge, they are responsible for the consequences.”

The use of a single leader gives us the ability to defer accountability with clarity and having multiple leaders would make this confusing and potentially obfusticate the issue.

This likely is a key contributing factor as to why we have not seen many instances of co-leadership (there are some) or even multiple leaders. 

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Surprisingly, although teamwork is often recognized as more efficient than individual effort and ultimately producing higher quality results, we stick to our old standard of a single leader at the top. 

For many of us, it is easier to follow than to lead, taking direction requires less effort than participating in developing of the strategy and than supporting the execution (i.e., leading).

And so, albeit a model that logically is not optimal – that of a single leader overall – is the model we stick with.  Interesting, a simple and obvious innovation yet few organizations can make it happen.