The signature of leadership - artistic freedom in shared leadership practice
Alex de Voogt & Kees Hommes
The singularity of the leadership role in
organizations has been challenged since
the beginning of the twentieth century
(Pearce & Conger, 2003). The concept of
shared leadership entered the literature to
capture the possibilities of multiplicity at
the top. In the special case of two leaders
heading an organization, co-leaders and
dual leaders appear as alternative concepts
(Heenan & Bennis, 1999; Pearce &
Conger, 2003; Alvarez & Svejenova,
2005).
The distinction between shared, co- and
dual leaders is complicated by the different
dimensions that could set them apart. The
formal relations, such as a CEO and COO,
and the executive practice itself could both
turn leaders into pairs. Co-leaders could
have a hierarchical relationship, but share
the lead in practice; dual leaders are
understood as having equal rank, but may
have a clear division of power; all such
arrangements are considered shared
leadership (Bennis & O’Toole, 2000;
Gronn, 1999; de Voogt, 2006).
It is argued that two dimensions
differentiate the various double leadership
arrangements. An illustration of the
dynamic development of such relations
creates a better understanding of how and
why the duo has a role to play.
The shared leadership quadrants
In order to make sense of the different
leadership arrangements at the corporate
apex, two dimensions are distinguished
that appear when observing executive
duos. The first dimension is formal
hierarchy, which defines the authority and
decision-making rights for the individuals.
The second dimension is the division of
labor.
Hen Larry Ellison and Ray Lane headed
Oracle as CEO and COO respectively. In
their case, the CEO had more authority
than the COO, as is frequently the case in
CEO–COO duos. A difference in hierarchy
is absent in the case of Viacom Inc. that
has co-COOs and co-presidents. Tom
Preston and Leslie Moonves share the
same position and the one cannot formally
overrule the other. Executives are either
equals or in a subordinate relationship. The
equal relationship in executive duos is
often referred to as dual leadership,
whereas co-leadership defines the nature of
the arrangement where distinctive
differences in decision-making rights and
authority exist. (See for more examples
Alvarez & Svejenova, 2005)
The existence or absence of hierarchy
seems unrelated to how duos structure and
demarcate their roles and tasks: the
division of labor. In response to the
multiple aspects of the executive role, the
tasks can be divided between two people.
In many instances the complexity and the
sheer magnitude of the executive tasks
warrant a second leader with a different
field of expertise. In other situations the
leaders collaborate more extensively and
this may not show any clear division of
labor. Kevin Rollins says about his
relationship with Michael Dell at the Dell
Company that:
While we both have areas we work on
— and we try to define those quite
closely — we share a lot of
responsibilities, and whoever is
available does those things. We
collaborate on our ideas of what we
want the company to do. But I think that
in terms of the day-to-day business, I
run the company. He runs technology.
We share the strategy stuff. (Spooner,
2004)
When the leaders cross each other’s fields
of expertise, they seem to have merged
their practice. This complete collaboration
could also occur with an existent hierarchy;
in such cases the second leader is invited to
1
join in the leadership task without having
the formal authority to do so.
The examples above illustrate two
dimensions of leadership relations—
division of labor and hierarchy. Co-
leadership is hierarchical and shows a
division labor. The contrast with dual
leadership only concerns the hierarchy.
When the two dimensions are presented in
a diagram, two other relationships prove
equally conceivable. Merged leadership
has neither a division of labor nor a
Hierarchy/Division of Overlapping tasks
labor
Subordinate relation Invited leadership
Equality Merged leadership
The nature and definition of a leadership
arrangement is not static and is not
necessarily fixed in a quadrant, which
explains the multitude of definitions and
concerns in the literature. A shift from one
quadrant to another, such as the co-leader
becoming an invited leader, is easily
conceivable. Within an organization two
leaders may start to divide their labor or
begin to share responsibilities over time.
The hierarchy is often formally arranged,
but could change into different formal
relationships when new contracts are
signed or when the formal relation is
simply ignored. The leadership
arrangement in each quadrant is not more
than an archetype that mutates in all
directions without adhering to a specific
definition.
For each organization, the leadership
arrangement commonly changes over time,
indicating that the structure is not fixed for
an organization, but is dependent on the
requirements in a particular time period or
on the personal attributes of the people at
the top. For each decision the couple
repositions within the quadrants, leaning
towards a vertical or horizontal neighbor. It
is this changing picture that is essential in
understanding shared leadership.
Shared-leadership literature intends to
describe the benefits and prescribe the
hierarchy: the leaders enter each other’s
domain. Examples are found in Goldman
Sachs (Alvarez & Svejenova 2005:9)
where co-CEOs, co-chairmen and co-
department heads have been found. Invited
leadership has one official leader. The
lower-ranking partner shares in the
leadership decision-making. Since this can
only take place with the permission of the
first, the term ‘invited’ was chosen here. A
former co-leader could, for instance, be
invited to share in the power.
Separate tasks
Co-leadership
Dual leadership
ideal leadership arrangement. The fluid
distinctions between different dual
leadership arrangements obfuscate such
prescriptions. More importantly, an
optimal leadership construction is unlikely
to arise without the freedom to redefine the
relationship in terms of hierarchy and
division of labor. Successful companies
with shared leadership structures excite the
debate whether shared leadership is
perhaps more productive, innovative or
wanted. The occasional examples of
companies with rather diverse
arrangements over time point at the less
prescriptive idea that it all depends on the
situation and the people involved.
It is argued that shared leadership is a
dynamic venture. The possibilities do not
readily point at a preferred or a necessary
arrangement for any organization. In order
to show that the dynamics are more
important than the choice for one particular
leadership structure, it is necessary to make
a comparison. A situation in which people
travel all quadrants within the same
organization allows a full appreciation of
the described leadership spectrum. It is
likely to find couples traveling more than
one quadrant but it is rare to find the same
people in all four. For the unusual, we turn
to art.
2

Rubens and Brueghel
The collaborations of Rubens and Brueghel
show a relation between two leaders that
travels all quadrants of the diagram. This
allows an illustration of each leadership
arrangement for one couple and an
assessment of the outcome of such
arrangements by the study of their
masterpieces. The production of paintings
in the seventeenth century may seem far
removed from present-day organizational
demands, but the unusual choice of two
leading visual artists to seek collaboration
exemplifies the long-standing option for
shared leadership arrangements in all
practices.
Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) and Jan
Brueghel the Elder (1568-1625) were the
two most famous painters in Antwerp,
Belgium, at the beginning of the
seventeenth century. Rubens was a painter
of altarpieces as well as mythological and
historical subjects, while Brueghel, ten
years his senior, was part of a family of
famous landscape and still life painters
(Lowenthal & Rosand & Walsh, 1982;
Baudouin, 2005; Brand & Duparc, 2006).
Both Rubens and Brueghel were
accomplished artists with their own studios
in Antwerp. These studios produced
paintings by order of the international
courts or affluent individuals. Although
assistants are known to have contributed to
paintings of either painter, the artists
sometimes painstakingly point out to their
sponsors that the works are by their own
hand only (Woollett, 2006). Their
individual works are hardly inferior to any
collaboration. They also had their
individual patrons, such as Cardinal
Borromeo and his agent Bianchi, who
required paintings from one, that is
Brueghel, but not from the other.
In this era it was common for an artist to
specialize and work for more than one
painter. According to Friedlander (quoted
in Woollett, 2006:34) this “implied a
dubious division of labor, a pernicious
specialization”. Indeed, it required close
cooperation and adaptive techniques to
melt one artist’s contribution into the work
of another. Both Brueghel and Rubens
entered into such collaborative works with
other specialists. Rubens had a long-term
relationship with Frans Snyders, and
Brueghel with Hans Rottenhammer,
Hendrick de Clerck and Hendrick van
Balen.
Rubens’ collaboration with Snyders, for
instance, appears clearly hierarchical.
Rubens would paint a preliminary sketch
for the composition and Snyders would,
brilliantly, express the complexities of
subjects, mostly animals and still life,
devised by Rubens. Sometimes Snyders
was brought in after the composition had
been planned, but other times he was
allowed to devise his own still life and
animals to contribute to the composition.
Snyders had his formation in the studio of
Rubens and worked in anticipation of
future commission for his own sake.
Interestingly, despite the clear hierarchy,
the brushwork was so compatible that in
their most successful collaboration, The
Head of Medusa (1617–1618), it is
difficult to determine their division of
labor. In terms of the dual leadership
quadrants, there appears a shift from co-
leadership to invited leadership with a
division of labor that is unclear but a
hierarchy that remains in place.
The complimentarity of Rubens and
Brueghel is almost as pronounced. The
types of pigments and media used by the
two painters were not different from the
standards and practices of the day
(Doherty, Leonard & Wadum, 2006:226).
Also, the painting materials used by each
artist in their individual works were rather
similar. According to the art historians,
their application of paint is what
distinguished these masters. They entered
into a conceptual collaboration rather than
a simple division of labor. Unlike the
practice of their day, they entered the
relationship as artists of equal stature rather
than a master-apprentice affiliation. Their
individual contributions were integrated
yet distinct (Woollett 2006:3) and allowed
equal visual value.
At first the collaborative works of
Rubens and Brueghel showed major
corrections such as overpainting elements
3
of the other’s work. X-ray research has
shown that compositions were resized or
otherwise altered during the process. The
painters worked alternatively on the
painting, each artist in his own studio.
When the painting returned the other artist
added his part or finished and reworked an
earlier part. In this process a division of
labor is quickly recognized. Rubens
concentrated on the figures, the
composition of the people in the painting.
Brueghel composed the architecture around
these persons and added detailed animal,
plant and still life. In most paintings the
work started with Brueghel and he would
leave space for Rubens’ contribution. The
changes in the early works were sometimes
crude, such as Rubens radical revision of
The return from war: Mars disarmed by
Venus (1610–1612) in which Rubens
painted out most of the lower right-hand
corner and parts of the lower center with
gray overpaint so he could enlarge and
reposition his figures (Doherty, Leonard &
Walsh, 2006:229). Surprisingly little
underdrawing has been detected in later
works, which suggests that they agreed on
the compositions early in the working
process and optimized their collaboration.
The division of labor was still extant but
the collaboration was one of equality on
composition, a rare occurrence with any
apprentice or other collaborator; the
essence of their painting was performed in
collaboration while the execution was still
a division of labor. The two leading artists
had found a mode of collaboration without
hierarchy; on the contrary, their
relationship was one of friendship. Dual
leadership was clearly present and the
relationship was leaning towards a merged
leadership arrangement.
The friendship between Rubens and
Brueghel is well attested. Because of the
guilds it was not uncommon to have
frequent contact with other painters, and
even intermarriage between artists’
households was not uncommon. Rubens
and Brueghel were similarly close. Rubens
was godfather to Brueghel’s older children,
one of the executors of Brueghel’s will as
well as guardian of his children after
Brueghel had died. Also, Rubens’ first wife
was present at the baptism of the Brueghel
children. This intimate relationship would
allow a mode of collaboration in which
hierarchy and division of labor would be
hard to find.
The Garden of Eden with the fall of man
painted around 1616 (Doherty, Leonard &
Walsh, 2006:233) demonstrates that
Rubens and Brueghel had a clear
appreciation of each other’s skills and
specialties. It is their only work that is
signed with both their names. Brueghel is
thought to have inserted both names on the
painting, while in all of the other paintings
that Brueghel executed with other artists he
did nothing of the sort. It is the written
proof that the perception of their relation
was one of equality rather than
subordination.
In The Feast of Acheloüs, completed
1614–1615, the division of labor between
the two masters is almost impossible to
detect. Brueghel seems to have worked on
some of the figures and both touched the
appearance of the draperies. Apparently,
the artists frequently revisited the painting
and their contributions blended into one.
Their merger of leadership had reached
completion.
The collaboration between Rubens and
Brueghel is extraordinary, since they were
both leading painters of their time. The
relationship takes several forms after an
examination of each individual work. In
terms of the leadership quadrant, they shift
from dual to merged leadership.
Interestingly, the art historians do not judge
the different collaborative painting in terms
of superior or inferior. Neither
collaborative nor individual works are
considered of better quality as a group.
They each have their high points. Their
best-known collaborative work The Fives
Senses (1617–1618) was the result of a
tight collaboration. This series of five
paintings consists of rather small panels
compared to most of their other works, and
they used an inferior quality of wood
suggesting that these works were not
commissioned. The grand and the small,
the collaborative and the individual, the
portrait and the landscape, they are all facts
4
but hardly qualitative statements about
their work.
Even though few works by either
painter are considered inferior in terms of
quality, it does not mean that their
collaborative works do not stand out in
other ways. They combined their ambitions
to make conceptually innovative and
technically challenging artworks. The way
in which this was accomplished sets their
dual works apart.
The signature of leadership
The concept of dual leadership is not
unknown to the art historian. Rubens and
Brueghel produced much work for
Archduke Albert and Archduchess Isabella.
When Albert died in 1621, his wife
Isabella was appointed governess general.
Woollett states (2006:5):
The archdukes’ dual leadership, which
represented the goals of piety and
regality, thus was reflected in joint
artistic expression of their two favorite
painters. While mindful of themes
traditionally favored in courtly circles,
such as the hunt, the two artists also
devised new iconography and genres
that captured the devoutness and
splendor of the archducal court.
Dual leadership of dukes, managers and
artists paint a picture in which the colors
overlap in transparent layers and X-rays
reveal divisions that cannot be seen with
the naked eye. The quality of the product is
not necessarily dependent on the leadership
arrangement as is suggested by Alvarez &
Svejenova (2005), but, as with singular
leaders, the dual arrangement leads to
products with a unique signature.
Leadership arrangements are practical
arrangements mutating over time. The
artistic freedom to seek the optimal
arrangement shows most promise for any
couple seeking a shared structure.
Descriptions of these practices illustrate
the possibilities and should remain the
focus of shared leadership research. A
description of freedom in practice is much
preferred to the prescriptive analysis that
judges any arrangement as inferior.

References
Alvarez, J.L. & S. Svejenova (2005) Sharing executive power: roles and relationships at the
top. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.
Baudouin, F. (2005) Rubens in context: selected studies. Liber Memorialis. Centrum voor de
Vlaamse Kunst, BAI: Leuven.
Bennis, W. & J. O’Toole (2000) Don’t hire the wrong CEO. Harvard Business Review, 78,
pp. 170–176.
Brand, M. & F.J. Duparc (2006) Foreword. In A.T. Woollett & A. van Suchtelen, eds.,
Rubens and Brueghel: a working friendship, pp.ix–xii. Getty Publications: Los Angeles.
de Voogt, A.J. (2006) Dual leadership as a problem-solving tool for arts organizations.
International Journal of Arts Management 9(1):17–22. HEC Montreal, Canada.
Doherty, T. & M. Leonard & J. Wadum (2006) Brueghel and Rubens at work: technique and
the practice of collaboration. In A.T. Woollet & A. van Suchtelen, eds., Rubens and
Brueghel: a working friendship, pp. 215–251. Getty Publications: Los Angeles.
Gronn, P. (1999) Substituting for leadership: the neglected role of the leadership couple. The
Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp. 141–162.
Heenan, D.A. & W. Bennis (1999) Co-Leaders: the power of great partnerships. John Wiley
& Sons: New York.
Lowenthal, A.W. & D. Rosand & J. Walsh, jr., eds. (1982) Rubens and his circle: studies by
Julius S. Held. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

5
Pearce, C.L. & J.A. Conger (2003) All those years ago: the historical underpinnings of shared
leadership. In C.L. Pearce & J.A. Conger, eds., Shared Leadership: reframing the hows
and whys of leadership, pp. 1–18. Sage Publications: London.
Spooner, J.G. (2004) Rollins to be next Dell CEO. Extracted from News.com, November
2006. http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5169830.html
Woollett, A.T. (2006) Two celebrated painters: the collaborative ventures of Rubens and
Brueghel, ca. 1598–1625. In A.T. Woollett & A. van Suchtelen, eds., Rubens and
Brueghel: a working friendship, pp. 1–42. Getty Publications: Los Angeles.