We are struggling to redesign our Accountability Chart because we are too close to the day-to-day firefighting. Every time we try, we end up arguing. How can we use structured Thinking Time sessions to design the next evolution of our chart without letting personal biases ruin the meeting?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When your leadership team is stuck in daily firefighting, redesigning your Accountability Chart during regular meetings often leads to disagreements and personal biases. To overcome this, you need to step back and apply structured Thinking Time principles, isolating the design process from current roles and personalities.

Designing Your Ideal Structure

This process involves two key phases: individual deep thinking and a collaborative, rule-bound session.

Phase 1: Individual Thinking Time

Before the team meets, each leadership team member should dedicate forty-five minutes of quiet, uninterrupted time to answer a single, critical question:

"If we were building this company from scratch today with zero employees, what would the ideal structure look like to support our three-year revenue goals?"

Framing the question as, "How might we structure our departments so that we can scale without relying on specific individuals?" helps shift focus from current roles to the strategic needs of the business. This approach is crucial for building a scalable foundation, much like documenting your [operational playbooks for strategic premium multiples](/qa/operational-playbooks-for-strategic-premium-multiples) helps prove your business is turn-key.

Phase 2: Collaborative Design Session

When you bring the team together for this session, establish a strict ground rule:

• For the first ninety minutes, no employee names are allowed to be mentioned.
• Discussions should focus solely on boxes, roles, and lines of delegation.

By removing names from the whiteboard and conversation, you effectively neutralize personal defense mechanisms and turf wars. This allows the team to objectively design the organizational structure that the business truly needs to grow, without the distraction of who currently occupies which seat. This helps prevent the kind of conflict that can arise when [resolving Accountability Chart seat overlaps](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps).

Populating the Chart

Only once the team has unanimously agreed on the ideal structure should you reintroduce individuals into the discussion. At this point, you will evaluate who Gets it, Wants it, and has the Capacity (GWC) to fill each newly defined seat. This structured approach ensures you build a clean, scalable business ready for future growth or even an exit. It also helps in situations where you need to make difficult decisions, such as [transitioning a leader who cannot scale](/qa/leader-cannot-scale-transition).

This methodical process helps bypass common pitfalls like personal attachments to existing roles, allowing for a truly strategic redesign of your organization. It's also a valuable exercise when considering if you need to [restructure a seat for a legacy leader hitting their management ceiling](/qa/restructuring-seat-for-legacy-leader-hitting-ceiling).