When building the Accountability Chart, what should an owner do if an existing C-level role has no legitimate functional seat on the forward-looking structure?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is one of the most uncomfortable moments in an EOS implementation. It happens when an owner designs the Accountability Chart forward to support future growth, rather than drafting it backward to fit existing personalities.

The rule of the session room is absolute: structure first, people second. You must define the necessary operational seats that the business needs over the next twelve months to execute the vision. Typically, that means an Integrator seat overseeing Sales and Marketing, Operations, and Finance.

Often, a legacy title such as Chief Strategy Officer, Executive Vice President, or Chief Operating Officer does not map to a distinct functional seat with five major roles. In many small to mid-sized businesses, these executive titles were handed out years ago as compensation substitutes or ego retainers.

When you discover that an existing executive does not have a natural seat on the chart, you have three clear choices:
- Reassign the individual to a vital functional seat that matches their unique ability, provided they genuinely Get it, Want it, and have the Capacity to do it (GWC). This often means shedding an inflated C-level title and owning an actual operational function like business development or client delivery.
- Transition the individual into a special projects advisory role outside the leadership team, provided the company can justify the overhead expense.
- Realize that the company has outgrown the individual, and execute an honorable, respectful exit.

What you must never do is invent a phantom seat on the Accountability Chart simply to keep a loyal executive comfortable. Creating redundant seats confuses reporting lines, inflates payroll, and paralyzes execution across the organization.