We want to create an AI Operations Support seat that sits directly under the Integrator, but our IT and Operations directors claim it belongs in their departments. How do we resolve this structural tug-of-war on the Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Structural tug-of-wars occur when department heads view seats as symbols of power rather than functional accountabilities. To resolve this, you must look at the long-term needs of the business, not the personal desires of your directors.

First, define the core roles of the AI Operations Support seat. If the roles are focused on maintaining servers, security compliance, and software licensing, the seat belongs under IT. If the roles are focused on automating workflows, improving service delivery times, and optimizing departmental handoffs, the seat belongs under Operations.

If the goal of this seat is to drive cross-departmental automation that impacts the entire company, placing it directly under the Integrator is often the correct structural move. This positions the AI seat as a shared utility that supports all functions equally, rather than a resource hoarded by one department.

To resolve the conflict objectively, use an IDS® session with your leadership team. Present the options on the whiteboard. Ask your IT and Operations directors to explain how placing the seat in their department serves the company grandest goals, rather than their own departments.

Remind them that on the Accountability Chart, we design the structure for the business first, and the people second. If the Integrator needs direct oversight to ensure rapid, cross-functional automation as you prepare for an exit, the seat must sit under the Integrator. Once the decision is made, the team must support it to maintain organizational health.