Why I Think More Startups Should Try Rotating Leadership

Starting a software development company with multiple co-founders taught me many lessons, but perhaps none more surprising than what we learned from experimenting with rotating leadership roles. While this approach isn’t right for every organization, I wanted to share our experience because it fundamentally changed how we think about leadership development.

Like many early-stage companies founded by friends, we began with an overly democratic approach. Every major decision required consensus from all co-founders. What seemed fair in theory became paralyzing in practice. Simple strategic choices were turned into lengthy debates, and urgent decisions were delayed as we sought agreement from all parties.

According to recent venture capital research, 65% of startups fail due to conflict among co-founders, and solo founders are actually 2.6 times more likely to succeed than teams with three or more co-founders. We experienced this dynamic firsthand during a critical period when market conditions demanded quick pivots, but our consensus-driven approach left us unable to act decisively.

Our solution emerged organically, from necessity rather than researched management theory. Since we couldn’t agree on permanent leadership roles, we decided to rotate CEO responsibilities every three months. Each co-founder would take a turn with full executive authority to make final decisions and break deadlocks.

Here are some things we discovered:

Hidden strengths emerge naturally

The most valuable outcome was discovering capabilities we didn’t know existed. Our most technical co-founder, who rarely spoke in client meetings, turned out to be exceptionally skilled at understanding customer needs when he had to step into that role. Another partner, whom we viewed primarily as a creative talent, demonstrated strong operational instincts when given responsibility for our processes.

According to DDI’s 2025 Global Leadership Forecast, only 20% of HR professionals express confidence in their leadership bench strength, and 83% of organizations predict they’ll need new leadership capabilities within the next five years. Our rotation revealed talents that might have remained hidden for years in a conventional hierarchy.

Related: My Mom, Money and Me — Here’s How I Learned to Stop Fearing Money

Decision quality improved

Counterintuitively, having different people make decisions led to more balanced outcomes over time. This structure also kept our attention centred on strategic goals and company values rather than the personal management style of whoever was leading. Our sales-focused leader prioritized growth initiatives, while the operations-minded leader emphasized efficiency and quality.

The three-month timeframe also created healthy urgency. Knowing their leadership tenure was limited, each person focused on execution rather than endless planning.

Empathy and buy-in increased

When team members who had criticized certain decisions found themselves making similar tough calls, they developed a greater appreciation for leadership challenges. This experience-based empathy significantly reduced internal friction and improved team cohesion.

Related: How to Guarantee Buy-In From Your Senior Team

The practical framework

We established that the rotating leader had the final say on day-to-day operations, quarterly priorities and team conflicts. However, major structural changes — like significant hiring decisions or fundamental business model shifts — still require broader consensus.

Each handoff included a formal meeting where the outgoing leader briefed their replacement on ongoing initiatives, pending decisions and current challenges. This prevented important issues from being dropped and maintained continuity.

At the end of each rotation, other co-founders provided structured feedback on leadership performance. This created accountability while building a culture of continuous improvement.

Related: Why Every Leader Should Write a “How to Work With Me” Manual

When it worked well

The rotation was most effective during our first 9-12 months when we were still discovering individual strengths and figuring out our optimal structure. During this period, it served several crucial functions:

• Discovered abilities people had that their job titles didn’t show
• Prevented us from assigning permanent roles too early
• Built leadership capacity across the entire founding team
• Reduced ego conflicts by giving everyone a chance to lead

Related: 6 Ways of Balancing Employee Well-Being with Hard Work

When we moved beyond the rotation

As our company matured and individual strengths became clearer, we gradually transitioned to more permanent roles. The rotation had served its purpose: we now knew who excelled at what, and team members had found their preferred areas of contribution.

Some founders discovered they preferred leading specific functions rather than general management. Others found they were happiest as individual contributors. The experimentation period allowed these preferences to evolve naturally rather than being imposed.

Considerations

This approach worked for us, but it required specific conditions:

• Strong personal relationships and trust among co-founders
• Shared core values despite different leadership styles
• Commitment and trust in the process, even when some rotations were less comfortable
• Early-stage flexibility, where frequent direction changes weren’t disruptive

Companies with established operations, external investors expecting consistent leadership, or teams without strong interpersonal trust would likely find this approach problematic.

Other ways to use rotation

Even in traditional hierarchies, some rotation principles can be valuable:

• Cross-departmental leadership assignments for high-potential employees
• Project leadership rotation to develop management skills at multiple levels
• Temporary leadership roles during crisis situations to identify hidden capabilities

Research from McKinsey & Company indicates that companies with strong leadership development programs are 2.4 times more likely to hit performance targets. Rotation, when applied thoughtfully, can accelerate this development process.

The takeaway

Looking back, the 9-12 months we practiced rotation turned out to be the right timeframe for our situation. Once patterns became clear within a year, we recognized it was time to transition to more permanent roles rather than continue rotating indefinitely.

We also learned that some roles benefit more from rotation than others. Customer-facing positions, where relationship continuity matters, were more challenging to rotate than internal operational roles.

Rotating leadership taught us that management skills can be developed and that people often don’t know their own capabilities until given the opportunity to try something new. We saw team members surprise themselves by excelling in roles that didn’t seem like natural fits.

For young, equally-committed founding teams, it makes sense to experiment with different configurations until you see what actually works in practice. This applies beyond just the CEO role — we found similar benefits rotating people through sales, HR and technical leadership positions.

However, this requires good judgment. Only test promising alternatives where you have genuine hypotheses about potential success.

While not appropriate for every company, this experience created a stronger, more resilient organization with deeper bench strength. Most importantly, it reminded us that there’s no single right way to structure early-stage leadership—sometimes the best approach is the one that helps you discover what works for your specific team.