> But the main issue is that there's two leaders. We all know countries need two presidents, armies need two commanders, etc.
I can sense the sarcasm here, but I'm curious as to why this isn't the case? I'd imagine having two leaders provides more stability and thoughtfulness especially when it comes to executive decision-making, so what's the problem?
I'm going to share a story my mom told me about when she was in high school in the '60s.
There was an academic achievement award at her school, given based on objective criteria. I don't remember exactly what this award was called or what the exact criteria were (and my memory of the exact details of her story is hazy enough that I'm wondering if she was talking about being named her class's valedictorian). For the school's entire history, only boys won the award. Until my mom came along. She qualified for the award based on the objective criteria by a decent margin. And so, beginning with that year, her school decided to start issuing two awards: one to the top-performing girl and one to the top-performing boy.
So even though she won, she still had to share the award because the school suddenly changed the rules in response to a girl finally winning.
I find that when making soup, adding a second chef improves the quality. I also routinely change horses while crossing rivers and streams. Usually about half way.
Sarcasm aside, when there is a disagreement between coleaders, whose point of view prevails? When you know that then you know who is really in charge.
You misunderstood the idea. These aren't two leads with the same power. The decisional power is split between them and each has and bring their own responsibilities and specialities.
I can sense the sarcasm here, but I'm curious as to why this isn't the case? I'd imagine having two leaders provides more stability and thoughtfulness especially when it comes to executive decision-making, so what's the problem?