CFG's Caron Bradshaw OBE reflects on how her ideas and work around risk management and anti-oppression have come together to shape CFG's co-leadership model, its culture and future.
Those of you who have read my musings over the years will know that I have a number of topics which put fire in my belly. Two of those, risk management and anti-oppression, have recently come together in a powerful way.
You will probably be aware that I have led CFG for 15 years now and you may have seen the recent announcement that I'll be moving to a new role in October.
Several years ago I started having conversations with the board about what was next for me. For them, the traditional risk of ‘loss of a key member of staff’ was materialising and, for me, I was facing the wrench of thinking about how to leave well and when, from an organisation into which I have poured my heart and soul.
Like contemplating parenthood, there’s never a perfect time! But we can be more open-minded and intentional about how we manage these transitions.
I have long railed against the notion that there is a single right way to do things. To me, risk management is done well when we lean into our creative thinking.
What opportunities do these risks present? How might we make decisions that bring about the best chances of maximum impact and not just avoid bad stuff happening?
A traditional approach to what happens when facing this ‘loss of a key member of staff’ risk is twofold: a) how do we stop it happening and b) how do we fill gaps or mitigate disruption if and when it does?
That thinking only takes you so far. At CFG, I am delighted that the board was open to reimagining those questions; stepping back and exploring this as an opportunity to do things differently.
Loss or gain?
I have been blessed with chairs who want me to feel fulfilled and have career development during my time with CFG. This support from the top has enabled me to explore a portfolio career alongside the day job.
I have been given flexibility and support to take on paid roles, outside of my CFG duties, within a clear, agreed structure. Does the role clash with CFG? Will I have sufficient time or will it undermine CFG work/overstretch me? Can CFG benefit from the additional knowledge, connections and experience that the role might bring?
If the roles I went for ticked these boxes I knew I had complete support from the board. This has meant I have been able to try on different industries and roles, to understand what I want and need from a portfolio.
In turn, this has provided total transparency on my 'what next' for the board and staff and, barring a disaster or unforeseen issue, there would be no sudden exit to manage.
This approach not only empowered me professionally but also set a tone of trust and adaptability throughout the organisation.
By embracing potential, rather than bracing against change, we fostered a culture in which staff felt encouraged to be themselves and to seek broader horizons without fear of penalty. We believe in internal progression, rewarding stretch and growth wherever we can.
I believe the ripple effects have been profound. New ideas, fresh networks and different perspectives have enriched CFG’s practices and strategic thinking, enabling us to be more resilient and responsive in an ever-shifting landscape.
Transitions, in this context, become less about loss and more about evolution. The organisation’s willingness to experiment - with structures, roles, and even the concept of leadership itself - has modelled a kind of risk-taking that is thoughtful, values-driven and ultimately generative.
At this point, you might be pondering how this helps address CFG’s risk, other than slowing my departure, and what it has to do with anti-oppression...
Evolving leadership
Last April, I shared the board’s decision to appoint co-deputy CEOs with an in-principle decision to explore the possibility of co-CEOs in future. The backdrop to this had been that two of CFG's three directors at the time had expressed interest in becoming CEOs for their next roles.
With me planning my exit this created an opportunity to reimagine leadership. Inspired by Natalie Campbell and Charlotte Harrington, Co-CEOs at Social Enterprise Belu, I proposed to the board that the unique and complementary skills brought by Clare Mills and Sarah Lomax (then directors of the Policy and Communications Directorate and Commercial Services Director respectively) could provide a potential evolution for the leadership of CFG.
If we progress the careers in the rest of CFG, why not for the CEO? Could this offer an opportunity for career progression, knowledge retention, continuity of strategic journey and fresh thinking, without the risks associated with a like-for-like replacement sourced through an external recruitment process?
Who says that organisations require a single CEO and that this approach, developed over hundreds of years, with baked-in power dynamics that perpetuate oppression and hold back diversity, can’t be replaced by something better?
My learning over my career has increasingly driven me away from the command/control hero leadership towards loving leadership. The single CEO model has an inherent lean towards tooling up, pushing through, over confidence (even where you might be bluffing or making do) and, as a consequence, a greater likelihood of burnout, ego and perpetuating oppressive power dynamics.
The importance of support for a CEO, the need to have a someone else to share decision-making and problem solving challenges, the negative outcomes of being always available (and never properly switching off) and the fact that, however good you are, you cannot be brilliant across everything that a CEO needs to do, could all be addressed by a co-CEO model.
I wasn’t thinking about having two people doing all of the job for some of the time, but rather working full-time in concert on the whole of the role to offer even more.
Challenging norms
The shift towards co-leadership was not merely a structural change, but a deliberate step toward challenging entrenched norms. By questioning why the traditional single-CEO model persists - a model often sustained by legacy, hierarchy, and narrow definitions of authority - we open ourselves to new configurations that centre collaboration over competition and shared stewardship over singular command.
Through robust dialogue and collective reflection, we recognised that distributing leadership could simultaneously mitigate succession risks and catalyse a more inclusive, dynamic culture. A wise coach once told me you can’t occupy a space that someone else occupies fully.
So the process of exploring co-leadership has encouraged me to interrogate not just who leads, but how leadership shows up, how decisions are made, and whose voices are valued. It gave rise to a broader conversation about power, privilege, and the hidden barriers that stymie real equity at the top.
By deliberately unsettling the status quo, that space for more voices at the leadership table can be made. It is a reminder that in leadership, as in life, the greatest opportunities often emerge when we are willing to let go, trust our people, and imagine what might be possible beyond the boundaries of the familiar.
In reflecting on this journey, I see that the move toward co-leadership as a statement of intent about the kind of future CFG seeks to shape. It is an affirmation that leadership need not be synonymous with singularity, hierarchy or the myth of the single, infallible decision-maker. Instead, it can be an unfolding process, rooted in curiosity, humility, and the courage to share power.
Of course, experimenting with new models brings its own anxieties and complexities. Transitioning away from entrenched patterns is uncomfortable; it challenges habits and unsettles the familiar rhythms of organisational life.
Yet, it is precisely in these moments of discomfort that we find our greatest potential for growth. By inviting more voices, perspectives and lived experiences into the heart of our leadership, we not only safeguard against risk but also unlock deeper wells of creativity and resilience.
As CFG continues this journey, the lessons are clear: the future belongs to those willing to question, to listen and to reimagine. If we are to build organisations that are truly anti-oppressive - places where power is shared, not hoarded, and where leadership is a collective endeavour - we must be prepared to let go of what no longer serves us and embrace models that reflect the diversity and dynamism of the world we serve.
In the end, it is not the structure itself that makes the difference, but the mindset with which we approach change. When we lead with openness, compassion and a genuine commitment to equity, we find that transformation is not only possible, but inevitable.
The story of CFG’s evolving leadership is still being written, shaped by every conversation, every challenge and every act of collective courage. And that, perhaps, is the most powerful legacy we can offer: the willingness to imagine, together, what comes next.