We built our Accountability Chart six months ago, but we find ourselves constantly arguing about who actually owns certain cross-departmental processes, leading to dropped balls. How do we diagnose and fix these gaps in our structural accountability?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

If you are arguing about who owns cross-departmental processes, your Accountability Chart is either poorly defined or you are suffering from seat overlap. Go back to the core tool and look at the five major roles for each seat. These roles must be written in clear, simple language, and they must be completely mutually exclusive. If two seats have similar or overlapping responsibilities, you must separate them. There can only be one person accountable for any given seat or process. When multiple people are responsible, nobody is responsible. Remember that accountability does not mean doing all the work; it means being the single person who ensures the work gets done and who owns the ultimate outcome. If a process crosses departments, define exactly where the handoff occurs and designate one seat to own the overall result. Use your weekly Level 10 Meeting™ to identify where the friction lies and use IDS® to clarify the boundary lines. If a seat owner is struggling to manage their roles, check them against the GWC™ tool. Do they truly get it, want it, and have the capacity to run that seat? Cleaning up these structural gaps is essential, especially if you are preparing for a clean exit, as prospective buyers will look closely at your Accountability Chart to ensure the business operates seamlessly without relying on tribal knowledge or vague duties.