We have a leadership team member who insists on having a co-head or co-director seat because they refuse to report to their peer. How do we handle co-leadership or split seats on the Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Co-leadership is a disaster for accountability. When two people are responsible for a single seat, nobody is responsible. If you have split seats or co-heads on your Accountability Chart, you have designed a system that guarantees confusion, finger-pointing, and slow decision-making.

The demand for a co-head seat is almost always driven by ego, status management, or fear of a demotion. This is a people issue masquerading as a structural need. You must design your Accountability Chart based on what is best for the organization, not to preserve the feelings of individual leaders.

To fix this, go back to the basic rule of the Accountability Chart: only one name can sit in a seat. If you have two people sharing a seat, you must split the functions into two distinct seats with unique roles and measurable outcomes, or you must choose one leader to own the seat and have the other report to them.

If one leader refuses to report to their peer, you have a GWC or Core Values issue. A true team player puts the company first. If their pride prevents them from working within a clear, functional hierarchy, they are showing that their personal status is more important than organizational health.

Address this directly. Define the seats clearly based on the needs of the business. Present the new structure to the leaders and ask them if they GWC their new, single-owner seats. If they cannot accept the structure, you must help them transition out of the business.