After exiting my first startup, I swore I wouldn’t have cofounders again.

The power struggles. Bickering. Pulling in different directions. 

I blamed it all on the fact that we had more than one person “in the driver’s seat.” 

A lot of founders feel the same way. They reject co-leadership because it looks complicated, they’ve had bad experiences, or they’re just scared of the stories they’ve heard.

But this is wrong. I was wrong.

Companies with co-leadership actually outperform those led by a single founder/operator. Turns out, my problem was more about communication than structure.

Two people sharing authority seems like it would slow decisions and confuse the team, when you’re still finding your footing. I mean, the most visible examples are massive companies like Spotify and Oracle, which feel irrelevant when you're running a team of five.

But co-leadership isn't about flippantly giving two people a title like “co-CEO.”

Rather, it's when two founders divide operational domains, so each person owns clear decision rights in their area. Then, they communicate constantly to stay aligned.

Done right, it makes businesses faster. Typically, one person owns product decisions. The other owns revenue decisions. Those best-equipped to handle an area, do so.

Done wrong, it creates gridlock. Responsibilities blur, decisions stall, and the team hears conflicting priorities. I’m guessing we can all think of myriad examples of this done wrong, so I set out to explore just how to do it right.

In this newsletter:

Drinking more water and skincare alone weren’t enough. Pique’s Deep Hydration Protocol goes beyond the basics with a two-step, day-to-night ritual designed to keep you glowing, calm, and energized around the clock.

☀️ B·T Fountain fuels deep hydration, smooths skin, and supports lasting energy.

🌙 R·E Fountain melts away tension, calms your mind, and promotes deep, restorative sleep.

Together, they nourish your skin barrier, restore your nervous system, and help you feel radiant from the inside out.

Uku Täht spent his first year building Plausible Analytics alone. Like many before him, he (unfortunately) proved that technical excellence doesn't guarantee traction.

By March 2020, after 14 months of solo work, he'd reached just $433 in monthly recurring revenue. Roughly one paying customer per week. Proving that people were willing to pay for what he made is a huge accomplishment in and of itself, but Täht dreamed of more.

The product was solid. A privacy-focused alternative to Google Analytics that actually worked. But Täht knew his limits.

“I’m good at writing code, but I'm not very good at writing blog posts, communicating stories and ideas to people,” he admitted in an interview.

He'd been searching for a partner since day one, but now he tailored his search. He wanted a marketing cofounder.

Enter Marko Saric.

Within 23 days of joining, Saric published “Why you should stop using Google Analytics on your website.”

The post hit #1 on Hacker News and drove 50,000 readers. Nearly double Plausible's total traffic from the previous 15 months.

More importantly, it generated 166 trial signups in one week. That exceeded the previous four months combined.

Perhaps it was due to the 14 months of slow-going solo time, but Täht and Saric’s division of labor was surgical.

Täht handled all design and development. Saric owned marketing, communication, and community management.

No overlap. No ambiguity.

They made major decisions together through twice-weekly video calls, but execution stayed firmly in separate lanes.

As a result:

In 27 months, Plausible went from $433 MRR to $1 million in annual recurring revenue. All while remaining completely bootstrapped, with zero advertising spend.

Täht and Saric weren’t childhood best friends, prior colleagues, nor miraculously the “perfect personality matches” for each other. They succeeded because they:

One person owned product and the other owned revenue. Decisions moved faster. More importantly, the business grew faster.

Co-leadership works when it's structured around clear domains, rather than titles. Call yourselves co-CEOs, Heads of X, or simply “tech person” and “money person.” It doesn’t matter.

What matters is that you divide decision rights cleanly, maintain disciplined communication, and respect the heck out of each other's contributions.

Co-leadership only works if it's clear, time-bound, and focused on outcomes.

If you're considering implementing it in your business, try a 90-day test drive.

The process below isn't about aimlessly adding another meeting or making things complicated. It's a surgical process that trades a bit of time for improved focus, trust, and efficiency down the line.

Decide on a start and end date. Ninety days is long enough to notice patterns but short enough to stay reversible.

Mark it in your calendar. Treat it like any other business commitment.

I created a lane map template for you to use, if you’d like to make this process faster. Write out who owns which areas: revenue, product, marketing, operations.

Avoid “joint” ownership unless absolutely necessary. Remember that your goal is clarity, not equality.

Think about natural splits in your business. Where does one person's expertise end and the other's begin?

The Plausible model worked because Täht and Saric never stepped on each other's toes. When a coding decision needed to be made, it was Täht's call. When a marketing strategy needed direction, Saric decided.

Meet once a week to clear decisions, surface risks, and confirm that you’re both aligned. If it helps, use the 20-minute agenda template I’ve prepared. 

Keep the recap short and share it in your team channel. Three bullets maximum.

This isn't a status update meeting. It's a calibration session to ensure you're still moving in the same direction. If it starts to feel like a rote exercise where saying your piece feels more important than the discussions… change something.

Over the trial, you're looking for improvement in speed and fewer overlaps, not perfection.

Log these metrics each week:

Decision turnaround time: How long does it take from “we need to decide this” to “decision made and communicated”?

Collision count: How many times did work cross lanes or create confusion about ownership?

Growth proxy: Pick one business metric that matters. Shipped features, qualified leads, closed deals, customer retention. It doesn’t matter what it is — just that you care about it. Track this metric weekly.

At the end of 90 days, look at the data honestly.

If clarity improved and things moved faster, keep the structure. Refine the lane map based on what you learned.

If it added friction or slowed decisions, drop it. Return to a single-lead model.

Either way, you'll have sharper insight into how leadership works best at your current stage.

(b) One critical note: This only works if both people genuinely want it to work. If one person is trying to prove the other wrong, or if there's an underlying power struggle, no framework will save you. (Therapy might, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic)

Software was supposed to make work easier. Instead, most teams are buried under it.

That’s SaaD – Software as a Disservice. Dozens of disconnected tools waste time, duplicate work, and inflate costs.

Rippling changes the story. By unifying HR, IT, and Finance on one platform, Rippling eliminates silos and manual busywork.

Companies like Cursor, Clay, and Sierra have already left outdated ways of working behind – gaining clarity, speed, and control.

Don’t get SaaD. Get Rippling.

Is SaaD hurting you?