Two tastes are better than one... even in the company guide

The second: greater organisational effectiveness to avoid bottlenecks and be fast. At Netflix, where speed was necessary to maintain the 'first mover advantage' over Disney+, HBO+ and others, Hastings was in charge of streaming, subscriptions, technology, and Sarandos of films, series, and creative relations. This allowed while Hastings was absorbed in the evolution of the post-Covid infrastructure, i.e. tech operations, for Sarandos to sign contracts for the production of Squid Game, i.e. creative strategy and relations with key stakeholders. How many 'single' CEOs would have been able to pursue two such different opportunities that required absolute focus?

The third: real-time decision-making quality that allows the generation of integrated thinking, questioning mutual assumptions and rigorously testing decisions before they are communicated. At Chipotle, an American Mexican food chain, Ells in his role as founder-chef was the guardian of the quality and integrity of the food and Moran in his role as an operative was the expert on process, people and scalability; instead of having a mediocre decision, the two would clash in private: Ells would question Moran's operational feasibility, and Moran would question the cost of Ells' culinary fixations. This process ensured that growth did not destroy the soul of the brand and that the soul of the brand did not impede growth.

A collegial leadership needs certain tools to function. The first is an operating protocol where decision-making areas, processes for handling urgent problems and methods of communication are written down. The second is a criterion for dividing areas of activity according to competence and not by habit or convenience. The third is a structure that allows alignment through regular meetings of two, a record of decisions taken jointly, a communication protocol; this structure also allows details to be regulated that are carefully observed by the organisation: e.g. who speaks first in which meetings or which topics are preferred by one of the two.

To these considerations of American theory, familyandtrends adds some insights from an example of the functioning of two brothers leading a family business. For brothers, communication between the two leaders is not only rapid, it is often superfluous: there is no need to talk to each other, one knows what the brother will do in a given context. There is a clear and historical division of spheres of action: ever since they arrived in the company, the brothers have been dealing with different things and have created their own entrepreneurial figure in different spheres: this means that everyone knows who is in charge of what and it is natural for the two co-leaders to do what they know and have always done. A clear division of authority is accompanied by a clear indivisibility of responsibility: not 'he said so ask him' but 'my brother did it because it had to be done and I would have done it too'.

Management scholars around the world are asking: how much more efficient can a business organisation be led by two people who are one when it comes to responsibility and speed of decision-making but two when it comes to analytical skills, competence, motivation and focus? The answer is: as much as the anachronistic and nepotistic Italian family businesses are.

*(Lecturer in Family Business Strategy - University of Turin - bernardo.bertoldi@unito.it)