Introduction: A Practice That Becomes Theory
This article stems from the desire to give voice, form, and theoretical substance to an experience lived and cultivated over the past twenty years: that of co-leadership within groups. A way of working that initially manifested in an intuitive, almost spontaneous form, in contexts with groups of children and adolescents, where the complexity of dynamics required a multiplicity of perspectives, a shared relational holding, and an amplified capacity for containment.
In those early attempts, co-leadership appeared as a natural response to an implicit demand of the field: to be present not only as individual therapists but as a relational pair, capable of supporting, mirroring, modulating, and opening new spaces of meaning.
Over time, it has found new expressions in training contexts and adult pathways, progressively becoming a more conscious, structured, and fertile working method.
No longer (and not only) an organizational setup, therefore, but an epistemological and clinical stance capable of profoundly transforming the quality of presence, relationship, and contact within group processes.
Our proposal does not claim to offer a normative model or a univocal definition of co-leadership. Rather, it is configured as a theoretical and experiential narrative that has emerged over the years, intertwining reflections and experiences, and finding meaning in the continuous dialogue between practice and theory. A journey also marked by stumbles, impasses, crises, and misunderstandings, but traversed by profound resonances, shared insights, and moments of creativity generated in the dialogue between us and with the groups.A significant impetus to our thinking came during the preparation of the seminar conducted last year and addressed to all the students of the school. It was a valuable opportunity that allowed us to intertwine reflections, experiences, and insights, building together a common language to express what had until then remained partly implicit or fragmented.

But what does it really mean to co-lead?

Co-leadership is a dense and vital relational act, a way of being in the therapeutic relationship that centers on reciprocity, shared presence, and the construction of meaning in the here and now.
It does not arise from merely dividing tasks, nor does it end in a functional distribution of roles: it rather takes shape from a deep relational intentionality, nourished by listening, permeability, and co-exposure.
To co-lead means to expose oneself together to the unpredictability of the field, to consciously inhabit the complexity of the relationship with the other person, and to be able to dwell in not knowing, trusting in the quality of the encounter and the possibility of creating meaning together.
It is precisely from this shared position—made of mutual attention, continuous negotiation, and openness to transformation—that some central elements emerge, capable of structuring the background of co-leadership.
In this article, we aim to delve into two dimensions that we consider foundational within our reflection: intimacy understood as a deep relational quality that allows co-leaders to authentically, embodiedly, and permeably co-inhabit the same field and power as an underlying and pervasive dynamic that permeates every human encounter, and in co-leadership requires continuous awareness, a dialogical practice, and a willingness to decenter the self to make space for an egalitarian co-creation.
Co-leadership then becomes a third place: neither fusion nor separation, but a shared territory where two subjectivities engage without masks, supporting not only the process of others but also their own relational process. In this sense, co-leading is also an exercise of co-belonging, an ethical and political practice as well as a clinical one.We also hint at a third element—working with the background—which, while still being a subject of theoretical and practical exploration, proves promising and full of implications. We will dedicate a specific contribution to it in a forthcoming article, where we will attempt to delineate its contours, tools, and possibilities of use with greater clarity.

Intimacy (as Construction, Not as Given)
Intimacy is a word that derives from the Latin intimus, meaning “the innermost, the deepest.” It is not a given quality, nor an automatic characteristic of the relationship: it is a condition that is intentionally constructed. There is a paradox at the heart of intimacy that deserves attention: on one hand, it evokes what is deepest, interior, personal—the intimate, indeed—on the other, it cannot exist except in relation to another. One can say “I am in intimacy,” but only if this condition is realized with someone: intimacy, in fact, is not an individual state, but a relational quality. I can be “an intimate friend of someone,” but not simply “intimate,” as if it were a self-sufficient characteristic, disconnected from the other.
Intimacy does not exist in the singular: it always manifests in the shared space between two subjectivities that meet, expose themselves, and recognize each other.
Intimacy, therefore, is always traversed by the presence of the you. It is a relational dimension that is realized precisely at the point of contact between two interiorities. In this sense, the word intimate opens up to a double semantic direction: on one hand, it evokes the depth of the self, on the other, the bond with the other. It unites what is apparently separate: interiority and relationship, inside and outside.
“Being intimate with you means, in fact, that I have opened my ‘innermost self’ to you, that I no longer maintain my daily and tentacular system of defense and protection towards you. In intimacy, I am neither cautious nor suspicious”. (Jullien, F., 2019, p.25).
This dual movement is well represented by the image of the contact boundary, which we can think of as the skin: a surface that separates, but at the same time a meeting point.
It is what distinguishes and protects each person’s identity, but also what enables relationship, touch, and exchange.
The boundary, therefore, is not just a barrier, but a living place of interaction, where the possibility of intimacy without fusion, of closeness without annihilation, takes place. Contact is never a total fusion, nor an absolute distance. It is rather a threshold space, where two subjectivities meet while maintaining their distinction, but allowing something of themselves to pass to the other — and vice versa.
The inside and outside, in our ordinary experience, tend to be perceived as opposites that ignore each other, each from its own side. But in intimacy, this arrangement breaks down. Intimacy happens not despite the boundary, but through it. It is precisely the contact between two internal worlds — each secure in its own identity — that makes an opening possible.
Being in intimacy thus means inhabiting this tension: being sufficiently in oneself to avoid self-annihilation, but also open enough to allow oneself to be traversed. It is a delicate balance between exposure and withdrawal, between vulnerability and presence, between otherness and recognition.
It means giving up, if only for a moment, narcissistic self-sufficiency to open oneself to a we that is not fusion, but co-belonging. In intimacy, the frontiers between self and other begin to blur: boundaries don’t disappear, but become softer, permeable, porous. It is precisely in this threshold, where two subjectivities meet without merging, that the space of co-creation opens up, fostering interdependence between the parts. The boundaries between I and you soften and blend, not to disappear, but to create a new shared space.
In this mutual transformation, individual identity doesn’t dissolve but allows itself to be traversed and modified by the other. The intimate encounter manifests through a full and vigilant presence at the contact boundary. It requires the willingness to see the other for who they are — in their difference — and to let oneself be modified by that otherness, without reducing or absorbing it. It is an act of deep listening that goes beyond words, including gestures, silences, hesitations. Tuning into the other’s contact intentionality means embracing the complexity of their presence, allowing the experience of the encounter to become fully relational. But for this to happen, one must expose oneself. Recognize one’s difference from the other and have the courage to express it. Intimacy requires vulnerability — not as a sign of weakness, but as a willingness to show oneself without armor, to let something of the other touch us and, potentially, transform us.

But only if one is naked before the other, if one is fully present in the here and now and with the other, is it possible to sustain the evolving excitement of the encounter. To reach this goal, it is necessary to recognize one’s own fears (and the objections that consequently develop towards the other), which we clothe ourselves with in intimacy, as well as to recognize the other’s experience. When this is achieved, it becomes possible to tune into both one’s own and the other’s contact intentionality. (Lee, R. G., 2018, p.323).

Intimacy is not built on absolute similarity. On the contrary, it arises from the balance between similarities and differences. Similarity alone leads to confluence, to the flattening of contact, there is no growth. Difference alone generates distance and discontinuity, in this case too, contact is interrupted. If the field is illuminated only by differences, judgment about one’s own actions may emerge and the sensation of feeling “less” than the other; judgment about the other may arise, accompanied by annoyance or irritation; shame may surface: the fear of not being accepted and recognized by the other in one’s diversity; uncertainty and instability may manifest, not knowing what will happen.
When the relationship between co-facilitators manages to hold together the polarity of similarity/difference, it can become a transformative relational model for the group as well.

The Power That Flows Through Us

Speaking of intimacy without addressing the issue of power would be naive. Every relationship that aspires to the depth of encounter is also traversed by power dynamics, and co-facilitation is no exception. In fact, precisely when two therapists share the responsibility of a process – the way power plays out – the distribution of power, both in its explicit and more subtle, implicit forms, manifests as an invisible thread that structures the relational field.

But what do we mean when we talk about power? And what meaning do we want to give to this term? How does it permeate our lives, influencing our encounters?
We have all grown up within a one-power culture (Philippson, 2020), where only one individual at a time can exercise their power. Think, for example, of family, educational or work institutions: in these contexts, either there is one person who always holds power, or it alternates among members, depending on the situations. However, it is never truly shared at the same moment.
Faced with difference, one can choose to either leave power to the other or exercise it, interrupting that we and reestablishing a division. In this dynamic, the relationship ceases to be a co-constructed space and becomes a ground for hierarchical confrontation, where one of the two poles asserts itself at the expense of the other.
Another perspective that highlights the same mechanism comes from patriarchal culture, which for centuries has shaped our way of understanding relationships, even the most intimate ones. In our discussion, we started from the figure of the patriarch: the one who holds authority, who represents the point of reference, but also the limit. His figure embodies a centralized, non-negotiable power, to which other community members must relate in a subordinate way. The patriarch is “the one who knows,” “the one who can,” and from this knowledge and power derives the legitimacy to guide, but also to exclude.
From this image emerges a hierarchical and pyramidal social and relational system, where there is someone who decides and to whom all power is delegated. A system that, at the same time, offers security, because there exists a recognized figure who knows what is good for the community and who holds together its unity, that reassuring “we.” However, it is also a system that removes responsibility, since power and responsibility – understood as the ability to respond to situations – remain in the hands of a single person.
In doing so, it outlines a relational model that hardly leaves room for reciprocity, uncertainty, or the negotiation of differences.
Both the one power model and patriarchal culture offer, on one hand, a sense of security, as they propose a stable and predictable structure, where roles are defined and responsibilities clearly distributed. However, on the other hand, they configure themselves as rigid systems, inflexible and static, scarcely open to novelty. They are centered on maintaining stability and leave no room for differences, which are often eliminated through dominance, rules, and law.
Other lenses for observing and experiencing differences are offered by the two power model (Philippson, 2020) and matriarchal culture.
In this model described by Philippson, all participants in a relationship are recognized as power holders. Power, in this sense, is not something to be contested or distributed in turns, but a quality that can coexist and manifest simultaneously in multiple people. Differences, therefore, do not represent obstacles to overcome or threats to neutralize, but become generative elements, sources of enrichment for the relational field. In a two-power system, the relationship is seen as a dynamic and creative space, where each person can bring their own voice without having to give up their subjectivity, and where confrontation, even conflictual, is considered an evolutionary resource and not a break in the bond.Similarly, in the matriarchal system, power is based on participation, fluctuating leadership, the dialectic of differences, suspension of judgment, and equality.This does not mean that leadership is denied, but that powers are functionally divided. The focus is not on the individual, but on us: us as a couple, us as a community collaborating for a common goal.In this horizon, it is not homologation or uniformity that is the way to build authentic bonds, but confrontation, openness, and the ability to co-create new forms of relationship.The other is not seen as a problem to be eliminated, but as one’s missing part: a symbol of one’s incompleteness and insufficiency.“Their difference becomes a gift to me, and my difference in turn represents a gift to the other: something that supports the bond, that nourishes intimacy”. (Molinari & Cavaleri, 2015, p.38).
These principles find a natural application in co-facilitation, where two therapists work together sharing power and responsibility. Co-facilitation, in fact, is a space where differences between facilitators are neither denied nor flattened, but valued as a resource to enrich the therapeutic experience. As in the two-power model, each facilitator brings their own subjectivity and perspective, contributing to create a richer and more dynamic relational field. Leadership is distributed fluidly, supported by dialogue and collaboration, and the differences between co-facilitators become an opportunity for growth, not a source of conflict to be avoided.
Moreover, this way of working allows for addressing and transforming narcissistic aspects, as it involves the ability to recognize and welcome the other as different but equally important, overcoming the need for exclusive control or the fear of being overwhelmed.
In this way, co-facilitation becomes a transformative relational model that can also foster group growth, offering a space of shared intimacy and power.

Conclusion: Co-Facilitation as a Transformative Alliance

Co-facilitation is not simply a technique, but a relational philosophy. It requires courage, vulnerability, radical listening, and openness to change. It is a continuous exercise of equality and presence, of attention to complexity, of openness to the mystery of encounter.The intimacy between co-facilitators, supported by conscious work on power dynamics, creates a fertile relational space from which transformative work can emerge for group participants.In a time when relationships are often reduced to functionality and control, co-facilitating becomes a political act, as well as a clinical one: a way to affirm that it is still possible, and necessary, to create spaces of authenticity and belonging — relational places that resist the narcissistic drift and isolation of the self-referential ego.Co-facilitating means recognizing equal dignity to the perceptions, emotions, and fantasies of both. It’s not about erasing differences – in experience, language, theoretical posture – but preventing them from hardening into silent hierarchies, into predetermined roles that limit the vitality of the encounter.
Only through this delicate balance between similarity and difference, between power and vulnerability, does co-facilitation make visible to others the value of authentic intimacy, creating a space of transformation capable of supporting both the group process and the personal growth of every individual involved.

Bibliography

• Bellini, B., & Magarelli, V. (2024). Sexuality and power. Figure Emergenti. https://figuremergenti.it/pratica-e-teoria/sessualita-e-potere/
• Del Soldà, P. (2022). On the wings of friends. A philosophy of encounter. Milan: Mimesis.
• Frazer, J. G. (2014). Matriarchy and mother goddesses (Italian Ed.). Paperback.
• Goettner-Abendroth, H. (2011). The matriarchal societies of the past and the birth of patriarchy. Rome: Edizioni Mediterranee.
• Jullien, F. (2019). Far from the noise of love. Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
• Lee, R. G. (2018). The secret language of intimacy. A Gestalt model for liberating the hidden power in couple relationships. Milan: Red Edizioni.
• Macaluso, A. (2021). Phenomenology of the self and therapeutic relationship. Individual and field in the Gestalt approach. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
• Molinari, E., & Cavalieri, P. A. (2015). The gift in times of crisis. Milan: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
• Philippson, P. (2020). One-Power and Two-Power Therapy. In eBook 15 – Topics in Gestalt Therapy. With thanks to Bob Resnick.
• Pizzimenti, M. (2015). Aggression and sexuality. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
• Pizzimenti, M., & Bellini, B. (2022). Gestalt Sexology. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
• Plato. Dialogues on friendship and love.
• Taussig, M. (2023). The art of non-domination in the era of global disintegration. Library/anthropology.
• Wollants, G. (2006). Gestalt Psychotherapy: therapy of the situation. Turin: Edizioni Gestalt.