When building our Accountability Chart, we realized our leadership team seats are clear, but half of our critical functions have empty or shared seats. How do we prioritize hiring versus delegating without stalling our quarterly Rocks?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

It is standard during an initial EOS rollout to discover that your future-looking structure requires roles nobody currently occupies, or that leadership team members are wearing three different hats. The cardinal rule of the Accountability Chart is to build the structure right for the business first, completely detached from existing personalities and headcount, and only then place names into seats.

When you identify empty or doubled-up seats, do not panic and launch an immediate, expensive hiring spree. That drains cash and creates management overhead before your processes are stable. Instead, follow a disciplined three-step triage:
- First, assign existing leadership team members as interim place-holders for the open seats, but make the multi-hat reality explicit. One person can hold two seats on the chart, but they must represent each seat separately and honestly during the Level 10 Meeting and quarterly planning.
- Second, use quarterly Rocks to systematically document and automate the core processes of those vacant functions. Stabilizing the seat through standard operating procedures or AI tooling often reduces the required workload from a full-time executive hire to a mid-level coordinator.
- Third, evaluate capacity and GWC (Gets It, Wants It, Capacity to Do It). If an interim seat holder lacks the capacity to deliver their Rocks because they are carrying two major functions, prioritize hiring for the seat that directly impacts revenue or operations first.

Clarity on the chart reveals your company's true operational deficit. Having an empty seat clearly marked is far healthier than pretending one executive can sustainably run sales, marketing, and customer success under an ambiguous umbrella title.