Co-leadership at Otto: insights into an innovative leadership model

Management positions are often advertised as full-time roles, which excludes people who work part-time. However, other models are possible, such as co-leadership, where more than one person holds the same management role. At Hamburg-based retailer Otto, Jennifer Halemba and her former colleague Marleen Hinzmann shared the head of recruiting position for more than two years.

In this interview, Jennifer Halemba explains how part-time co-leadership not only enabled her to take the next step in her career as a young mother but was also an extremely enriching experience for her personal development.

Ms Halemba, you and your colleague Marleen Hinzmann shared a management position focusing on recruiting, context HR and business recruiting. Was it a good decision in retrospect?

Jennifer Halemba: Co-leadership, in the sense of management split between two people, is a model that works very, very well in my opinion. This has been our experience over the last two years.

Where did the initial idea for a leadership duo come from?

Our manager saw the qualifications, the ability and the potential in both of us. We both said, however, that we were only available to work part-time due to our family situations. We are both mothers of two relatively young children. We then discussed very openly what framework we could make possible and whether we wanted to develop in such a direction at all.

Who brought up the term co-leadership – was it your boss at the time?

We come from the field of business human resources and "naturally" deal with such models. Co-leadership was not a completely new term for us. I would say it was not initially our boss's idea; we developed it together in our discussions.

What were the other reasons for this decision, besides balancing family and a management position?

The head of department role was actually quite extensive, both in terms of team size and subject matter. Marleen and I had known each other for over ten years, including from working together. We very quickly came to the conclusion that we could easily see ourselves sharing this role.

I find it interesting that the idea of a shared management position came about through discussion. How did you go about dividing up your tasks?

Our starting point was that we wanted to completely divide our tasks, both professionally and in terms of people leadership. It was clear to us that we would both continue to be solely responsible for certain specialist topics from our senior HR roles. The initial idea, however, was to delve into each other's specialist areas enough to be able to cover for one another and also to be able to assign or divide tasks between us.

But it ultimately turned out a little differently.

It quickly became clear in practice that it did not work as well as hoped in terms of subject matter. This was because both Marleen and I had very extensive specialized topics. We realised that it was not really possible to get involved to that extent in practice. It was different with people leadership.

Why were the topics too extensive to share?

For example, my colleague was responsible for executive recruitment at Otto, while I focused a lot on placement management—in other words, when we restructure, what happens to people who are entering a phase of reorientation? These were the two biggest areas we covered, both conceptually and in terms of operational implementation. They were actually major projects that simply made it impossible for us to get involved in each other's projects in addition to our own.

How did you divide the role in terms of time?

Before starting the co-leadership, we both worked 80 percent part-time. To do justice to the actual idea of the model, we each started at 70 percent (i.e. 1.4 full-time equivalent as a calculated figure). We initially agreed flexibly which of us would be on site when and who would be available in the afternoon or early morning. This quickly established a rhythm that was quite easy to plan with.

One reason for co-leadership was family. In terms of work-life balance, did the model deliver what you hoped for?

Yes, we were both already experienced with part-time work. Indeed, the 70 percent arrangement was a good model for us to support each other. Each of us usually had one day off during the week. We scheduled these on different days. This made it easy for us to plan who would take the children to school and pick them up. It turned out to be very positive and was a good model for us.

You both had the same working hours in the shared management position. Did you also earn the same?

Yes, we earned the same.

Did the two of you together cost 1.4 times as much as one manager in this position? And did that require some persuasion?

I understand the point you are making. Of course, from a purely monetary perspective, co-leadership is more expensive than hiring one full-time employee who earns a salary of X. Two employees at 70 percent each exceed one full-time equivalent. You have to be honest about it: co-leadership is initially more expensive for the company in terms of cost. However, you also have more manpower available. We are not just one full-time employee, but 1.4 full-time employees, if you will.

But there are also personnel costs.

Exactly, co-leadership is more expensive than a 1.0 appointment because you also have ancillary personnel costs per person. Nevertheless, the advantages clearly outweighed this, and it is indeed more than an appointment with one person.

You both managed to reconcile the next step in your career with your family situation. Were there any other aspects that were personally enriching for you?

Absolutely, you have just mentioned the hard facts. It was also a very enriching situation in terms of my personal development. We have different characters; we appreciated each other very much and were able to learn a lot from one another. The situation of almost merging professionally with someone is an opportunity you rarely get in any other constellation. To receive feedback so closely and to have such a trusting relationship with each other is a truly incredible and enriching experience. It does, however, require a high degree of mutual trust and professionalism.

What does co-leadership bring to a company like Otto?

As you probably know, the topics of providing opportunities and diversity are very important at Otto. We want to open up career paths for women and people in general in a wide variety of life situations. Co-leadership is not the answer to everything, but it is an option that can be taken. It also opens up the opportunity to take on a management position on a part-time basis, and we are not talking about 90 percent part-time here.

In retrospect, as an HR professional, are you also glad that you were able to do some pioneering work in this area?

We had the chance to create and try something that does not exist everywhere at Otto. There was little experience to draw on, as is the case in most other German companies. There has to be trust to let people go and try things out. Of course, there were concerns; cost is just one of many issues. Coordination effort is another: does the team even know who to turn to with which question? Do we remain efficient? A lot of questions immediately pop up. We had no role models in the company, no multitude of other co-leadership tandems we could ask.

Were there moments of confusion because you both held the same position?

I would say it was never confusing because we always operated in a specific professional context that could be easily distinguished from one another. We also approached it with a high degree of openness. So if someone asked us, we explained exactly what it was like and what the idea behind it was.

And how was it received in the company when you talked about it?

We were met with a great deal of openness, receptiveness and curiosity. Other managers pinged us and asked: ‘Wow, that’s interesting, how do you do it in this or that situation? What happens if someone calls in sick, where do they go now? Do you actually have two separate calendars and mailboxes or just one each?’ We received very curious and open-minded questions, and there was also a great deal of interest from outside the company.

Did you have any conflicts over responsibilities?

This may sound unbelievable, but there were no conflicts. Were there situations where, for example, we appeared in team situations and afterwards said: I would like to give you some feedback on that, or I would have done that differently? Yes, certainly. Otherwise, you do not grow and develop. That is part of our feedback culture and has nothing to do with conflict.

So you complemented each other perfectly?

We really appreciate our differences and specifically took on or did not take on certain areas. When it was clear that someone was needed to stand in the line of fire, to negotiate something where assertiveness was required, then those were the areas I took on. When it came to thinking about topics in a more political and strategic way, Marleen often did that. We knew this and could admit it without envy. We always tried to be of use to each other rather than working against each other.

Did you sometimes feel a certain pressure to demonstrate that things were going particularly well and efficiently for the two of you?

I think that is a mindset or attitude issue. We never felt that we had to prove ourselves as managers just because we were living a co-leadership model. We also said to ourselves that if we found that it felt artificial or no longer good for us at some point, we would go back to our senior roles and then we would have to think about a different model. We approached it with a high degree of openness and transparency. We also asked our team beforehand what they thought of it and whether they would go along with it at all.

What would have happened if many had been doubtful?

Then we simply would not have done it. We would have had to gain acceptance first and so on. It was a very, very open, participatory process in which all relevant people were involved.

Could co-leadership also enable more women to climb the next career ladder? They often have to take a back seat as parents. And wouldn't it be better in the end to promote two good women instead of one bad man?

I would certainly agree with that statement, of course. (laughs) Nevertheless, co-leadership has to be wanted, given the issues mentioned such as costs and so on. But of course, such models are an absolutely great opportunity, especially for parents, whether they are mothers or fathers.

Why do you think there isn't more co-leadership yet?

I believe people tend to choose the familiar and proven, especially in times of crisis. Co-leadership is not yet a learned model that has proven successful in enough places and is well-known. It is actually a bit of a shame to choose the familiar path. This often means that management positions are advertised as full-time jobs.

A more philosophical question: what would it mean for society if there were more co-leadership?

Many people still think of leadership in a very classic, almost traditional way. If you look at the overall picture of society, there would still be potential for improvement in terms of diversity when it comes to leadership, in order to create even more real opportunities and equality. I am referring specifically to women now, but I would deliberately broaden the scope even further. There are many people who work part-time, and this would open up more opportunities and paths.

Finally, do you have any tips for managers in other companies who would like to share a position?

My advice would always be: it only works if there is a great deal of trust and appreciation for each other. You have to be aware of your differences and see them as an opportunity to use them for co-leadership.

This article was translated to English using an AI tool.

OR CONTINUE WITH

Diversity

Interview

Otto

Workinfashion