There's an interesting article in yesterday's Toronto Star titled: "Are two heads better than one?"  It includes several statements worth a comment.

"Just last week, both Merrill Lynch Canada and U.S.-based arts and crafts retailer Michael's Stores announced they were appointing co-presidents.

Adding to the trend, BMO Nesbitt Burns last month announced co-presidents would run its Investment Banking Group. Waterloo-based Research in Motion has had co-CEOs for more than a decade, providing growing support for the idea that perhaps the job of leading an organization could be too much for one person."

Wally's Comment: Three companies appointing co-presidents in two months doth not a trend make.  Neither does one company that's had them for ten years. Four companies out of thousands is hardly a groundswell.

What about "too much for one person?" The academics might agree.

Elspeth Murray, a strategy professor at Queen's University is quoted as saying: "Realistically, how can we expect one person to run a company?"

Wally's Comment:  If "run" means making sure that all the necessary work gets done, then this is a legitimate question.  It takes a whole lot of enthusiastic people with their brains turned on to make for big-company success. But if "run" means "lead" then we should expect one person to do the job.

Leadership is not a team function.  Leadership is something that individuals do.  They need to do it at every level in a company.  And one person needs to do it at the top.

More than one boss invites confusion, conflict and wasted motion. Ignore the "trend" and find one good leader for your company.  Then develop leaders throughout the company so that you produce a continuing supply.