The Surprising Struggles of Co-Leading, and How Personality Type Can Help

Co-leading a team sounds great in theory. Having two or more leaders in charge means shared responsibility, collaborative decision-making, double the brain power and balanced strengths. But in reality? It’s easy for conflict to build. There’s a risk of stepping on each other’s toes or getting stuck in silent power struggles because boundaries blur and differences quietly intensify.

This article explores why co-leadership is so uniquely challenging, how personality differences can either fuel friction or support synergy, and what co-leaders can do to align more effectively using the lens of the Myers and Briggs system. Whether you’re working with your polar opposite or someone who has subtly similar styles, this article will equip you with the practical scripts to make co-leading smoother and more sustainable.

Why Co-Leading is So Hard

Even in the best partnerships, sharing leadership multiplies the chances for misalignment. In addition to leading a team or project, you also have to manage each other. Those interdependencies can result in decisions taking longer, and subtle differences in work preferences can snowball into tension.

Michael Bungay Stanier, best-selling author of How to Work with (Almost) Anyone, points out that many work relationships get derailed not because of dramatic blowups, but because of “the little irritations that accumulate when things aren’t named and navigated.” 

With the 16-type system in mind, you might notice the personality-based reasons why co-leadership gets derailed:

1. One leader feels steamrolled in meetings because the other talks first or loudest (Extraversion versus Introversion).
2. One is focused on the day-to-day tasks, while the other is fueled by long-range vision (Sensing versus Intuition).
3. One makes decisions based on data and logic, while the other prioritizes the human impact (Thinking versus Feeling).
4. One is driven to lock down a decision quickly, while the other wants to leave things open-ended (Judging Versus Perceiving).

How to Use a Keystone Conversation to Calibrate with Your Co-Leader

In the heat of the moment, these simple differences can result in significant gridlocks, especially when the lines of communication are closed. To prevent silos and stonewalling, Stanier proposes that every important working relationship should plan a “Keystone Conversation.” The idea is quite simple but profound: before getting too deep into the daily grind, set aside time with your co-leader to thoughtfully establish how you want to work together.

Find a time and space when you can focus on having a thoughtful conversation. Then, use Stanier’s two opening recommended questions as a starting place:

1. The Amplify Question:  What brings out your best? When do you feel most effective and energized?
2. The Steady Question: What are your practices and preferences? 

Taking a TypeFinder® for the Workplace assessment before your Keystone Conversation can give you critical self-awareness plus a framework for dialogue. Rather than being blindsided by conflict and then backtracking, you’ll be equipped to find the friction points from the start. You will also have the advantage of analyzing where your strengths are synergistic. 

How to Navigate Personality Preferences in Co-Leadership

Once you’ve established a baseline understanding with your co-leader, it’s important to continue the conversation. In the pace of the daily hustle, it’s easy to misinterpret a colleague’s behavior as frustrating or even malicious, when in reality, the tension you experience may be simply related to different perspectives and preferences.

Here’s a practical guide for naming and navigating the differences you may notice in your co-leadership.

Extraversion (E) vs Introversion (I)

• Trouble Spot: The Extraverted leader often wants to process ideas out loud (and sometimes at great length), while the Introverted leader usually prefers quiet time to reflect before responding. This may feel invasive for the Introvert, or like bewildering silence for the Extravert.
• Tip: Create an agreement on your conversation patterns (this is especially useful when in larger team meetings). Decide on a cadence that will leverage both of your styles: for example, you might propose to brainstorm together for a few minutes, then allot time for reflection before finalizing decisions.
• Keystone Question: “Do we need to decide this now, or can we take some time to reflect?”

Sensing (S) vs Intuition (N)

• Trouble Spot: Sensing leaders make decisions using past experiences and present reality, while Intuitive leaders push for new possibilities in unchartered territory. The S is likely to view the N as too abstract and idealistic, whereas the N may see the S as stodgy or resistant to change.
• Tip: Integrate the best of both worlds into your communication by pairing the vision with the reality. Ask the Intuitive leader to paint the big picture, then invite the Sensing leader to reality-check with data-driven questions.
• Keystone Question: “What data do we need to analyze the possibilities?”

Thinking (T) vs Feeling (F)

• Trouble Spot: Thinking leaders lean towards linear logic, while Feeling leaders weigh webs of values and relationships. The T can come across as too critical and the F as overly subjective.
• Tip: Build decisions that bring a collaborative balance. For example, begin by reviewing the facts, policies and principles, then get curious about the relational side of the equation.
• Keystone Question: “How can we blend reason and relationship in our decision-making?”

Judging (J) vs Perceiving (P)

• Trouble Spot: Judging leaders typically want structure, closure and clarity while Perceiving leaders like improvising and flexibility. The J may see the P as disorganized, while the P may feel the J is too rigid.
• Tip: Recognize when closure is non-negotiable and when you will benefit from keeping the options open. Keep an open discussion to determine where structure is necessary, and when adaptability will serve you well.
• Keystone Question: “What do we most need clarity on, and where can we stay flexible?”

Structuring Your Co-Leadership Strategically

Personality awareness and intentional conversations can set the stage for success, but thoughtful systems and structures are also essential. Having tools to get clearer on roles, responsibilities and decision-making processes can support creative synergy and prevent differences from derailing you.

Consider the following tools to help provide structure and clarity:

1. RACI chart – When roles are unclear, even in small ways, it can cause fractions and frustrations. A RACI Chart like this one gives you a format to determine who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed for key tasks or projects. Establishing these categories will allow you to delineate roles and build accountability measures. 
2. Decision protocols – Considerable conflict can arise when it’s time to make a decision, especially if you’re co-leading a team and haven’t clarified your approach. It’s worth the extra time to review different decision-making models and agree in advance which require consensus and which can be made independently.
3. Regular alignment check-ins – Many co-leadership partnerships suffer due to lack of communication. The keystone conversation can set the stage, but the communication needs to continue. Set up a regular time to discuss priorities and troubleshoot any challenges. 

Repairing after a Co-Leadership Conflict

Even with intentional preparation and continual conversation, difficulties in the co-leadership process may emerge. It’s important to anticipate challenges, and to develop methods to address them clearly and quickly. 

A few key principles can help support healthy resolution: 

1. Give yourself enough space to think, but don’t let your frustration drag on.  
2. Propose a time and space to talk when you can have an open mind and listen actively.
3. Frame the discussion around your shared goals.
4. Name personality differences without assuming negative motives. 
5. Develop clear solutions that you can implement or experiment with.
6. Agree together on one or two next steps.
7. Save some time to highlight your strengths and acknowledge what’s going well.   

The aim here is not to eliminate differences but to design a dynamic process to support them. Type awareness, combined with intentional conversations and structured systems, can provide a powerful array of tools to bridge your differences and build a more resilient relationship.