We have two high-performing sales reps who both want to be promoted to Head of Sales, and we are terrified of losing the one we do not choose. Can we put them both in the Head of Sales seat as co-leaders on our Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Putting two names in the Head of Sales seat because you are afraid of losing one is a classic management mistake that will destroy your sales team's execution. In the EOS® framework, there is a fundamental rule: one seat, one person. If two people share a leadership seat, accountability is immediately diluted.

The Problem with Co-Leadership

When you have two co-leaders, you effectively have zero leaders. Consider these issues:

• When sales numbers drop, who is truly responsible?
• When the sales process breaks, who fixes it?

This approach creates confusion and a lack of clear ownership, undermining the very purpose of an [Accountability Chart](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps).

Making the Hard Decision

Instead of compromising the structure of your Accountability Chart, you must make the hard decision.

1. Evaluate both candidates using the GWC™ filter: Do they Get it, Want it, and have the Capacity for this specific leadership seat?
2. Identify the true leader. Usually, one will emerge as the genuine fit for the leadership role. The other might be a stellar individual contributor who actually prefers selling to managing, a valuable asset in a different capacity.

Defining Roles and Protecting Your Structure

If you choose one as the Head of Sales, you must clearly define the boundaries for the other.

• The non-selected candidate can remain a top-tier senior sales executive with clear, lucrative targets but without management responsibilities. This allows them to continue excelling in their strength: selling.
• Avoid softening the blow by making them co-leaders. This will inevitably create a political battleground, confuse the sales team, and likely lead to losing both individuals anyway.
• Protect the integrity of your Accountability Chart to ensure clear roles and responsibilities, which is crucial for efficient operations and growth. A strong [Accountability Chart for EOS organizations](/qa/how-can-ai-optimize-the-accountability-chart-for-eos-organizations-undergoing-exit-planning) supports clarity throughout the organization.

Remember, a well-defined structure prevents issues like [seat overlapping](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps) and ensures that your team can run effectively without constant internal conflict.

Related questions

• [I am currently stuck in the Sales and Marketing seat, and I cannot afford a high-priced replacement yet. How do I transition out?](/qa/stuck-in-sales-seat-before-exit)
• [My business partner and I want to share the Integrator seat on our Accountability Chart because we both have equal equity and want to run daily operations together. Why is this causing our department heads to experience massive decision paralysis, and how do we fix it?](/qa/sharing-integrator-seat-partners)
• [How do the Visionary and Integrator handle a disagreement when they are completely deadlocked on a major strategic decision?](/qa/visionary-integrator-deadlock-resolution)
• [I am the owner currently sitting in four seats on our Accountability Chart, and since I cannot afford external hires, I want to promote from within. However, none of my current employees fully pass the GWC filter for these leadership seats today. How do I structure a developmental runway on our chart without prematurely giving them seats they are not ready to own?](/qa/internal-promotion-runway-accountability-chart)
• [We are planning our EOS rollout and I am confused about the sequencing. What is the actual difference between what we do on Focus Day versus what happens in the Vision Building days?](/qa/focus-day-vs-vision-building)