Chairperson-CEO Relationship: From Cockfighting to Collaboration

The following is adapted from Cockfighting by Isabelle Nüssli.

Most chairpersons and CEOs recognize that relationships between CEOs and chairpersons typically do not function well. But they don’t really know why politics and power games run rampant in the highest tiers of organizations, creating a climate of frustration and mistrust. Understanding the source of this unnecessary conflict and toxicity starts with examining the increasing complexity of leadership itself.

Back when life seemed a little simpler—before digital disruption, demographic changes, and the accelerated pace of innovation—it was more common for leaders to run a company single handedly. In many ways, this made organizational operations more efficient—one person was trusted to have all the answers, and leadership went top-down, unilaterally.

Today, however, the world turns much faster.

With increasing dependencies on an array of complex factors—technology, social media, artificial intelligence, globalization, and geopolitical concerns—that change from one day to the next, demands on leadership have increased.

It is much harder for one person to have all the answers. Forced to shoulder more pressures than ever before, leaders are faced with the necessity of working more collaboratively.

This makes personality as key to successful leadership as expertise.

Personality and Compatibility

Leaders’ personalities influence the people around them, the culture, and ultimately the performance of the company. But while this seems obvious, personality is not often a key factor in hiring top leaders.

Instead, chairpersons and CEOs are often hired on the basis of rational requirements. Such a portfolio says little about someone’s motivations or emotions, much less about their compatibility or chemistry with existing leadership.

It makes no sense to hire someone within a vacuum when they will not work within a vacuum.

What drives them? Money, success, appreciation, benevolence, social consciousness—or fear, anger, power? It is hard to tell until it is experienced.

If not assessed up front, often these important aspects and drivers are not learned until the relationship fails.

Defensive Mechanisms

In the case of a failed leadership relationship, the company will spin it as a different understanding expressed as “strategy misalignment.”

Another common cover for transitions of power in high management positions is to cite differences in leadership styles or the CEO’s intention to retire, followed by messages such as “thankful for their service” and the CEO is “looking forward to spending more time with family.”

When they name a successor in the press, both the board of directors and the leaving CEO express their confidence that the new CEO is “the right person to lead the company going forward.”

Most of the time, the story that isn’t put out to the public is about relational conflicts. In any case, the careful use of boilerplate language attempts to convey a rationale behind the confusion that ensues when leaders part ways.

Refusing to acknowledge psychological and relational issues only leaves defensive mechanisms in place to deal with them. Interpersonal dynamics and psychology are considered irrational, even “fluffy.” Corporate governance, by contrast, seems rational and reliable. Business culture prefers to deal with a clear right and wrong.

While it is much easier for a company to focus on company law and corporate governance to define guidelines, mechanisms, and procedures by which corporations are controlled and directed, these rational elements continually fall short in preventing and resolving conflict. This is not because they are not strictly binding and thus cannot be enforced, but mainly because they are rational—they do not take human behavior into account.

Good News

Currently, there are controversial discussions about combining leadership roles as a solution for co-leader conflict. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each structure for future performance or governance quality depend on the situation.

The question of whether to separate might be the wrong one to ask. Instead, it should be asked how the two leaders at the top can improve and nurture their relationship for the benefit of company culture, productivity, and performance—as well as their own personal success and well-being.

As long as humans have been around, dictating the rules does not change our behavior for the better. It just makes us find more creative ways of justifying or bending rules to better serve ourselves.

Laws can be interpreted and applied in many ways to support an agenda. The irrational is always present but typically not examined, leading to the recent decades of conflicts and scandals that even better corporate governance has fallen short of avoiding and/or dealing with.

Too many people go through their day-to-day business looking at others’ flaws without understanding or taking responsibility for their own actions or impulses. At the top levels of a company, conflicts are usually about power and other irrational aspects, and the leaders are often unaware of their own roles in the conflicts, or what’s driving their destructive behavior.

Senior leaders face intense pressure that brings about fears and doubts. They feel increasingly overwhelmed but can’t show any vulnerability. Add in the power games and conflicts among fellow leaders, and you end up with an unhealthy environment that hurts the individuals and the company.

The good news is that co-leaders and their organizations can get a handle on this pattern of compounding conflict drivers, reverse the toxic spiral, and improve the entire organization by building and cultivating a high-functioning co-leader relationship.

For more advice on the CEO/chairperson relationship, you can find Cockfighting on Amazon.

An international senior executive, Isabelle C. Nüssli brings insider knowledge to her practice as a leadership and personal coach. As “Chief Energizing Officer” for leverage-your-self.com, Isabelle directs a team of experts in business, behavioral economics, and applied psychology that supports business leaders and startups in navigating changes and capitalizing on their organization’s full potential. Her skills as a relationship builder and team motivator are characterized by inclusivity, inspiring positivity, and a passion for developing strong organizational dynamics at the human level.