My business partner wants to transition out of daily operations but is insisting on creating a new Special Projects and Strategic Growth seat on our leadership team. I am worried this seat is too vague and will allow them to meddle in other departments without taking real accountability. How do we address this request within our Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Creating a loosely defined Special Projects seat is a dangerous move that almost always leads to operational friction, role confusion, and executive overreach. In the EOS® framework, every seat must have a clear purpose and exactly five distinct, measurable roles. Vague titles like Strategic Growth often serve as a license for a transitioning owner to bypass the Integrator™ and disrupt the leadership team.

To handle this, you must apply the structure before people rule. Ask yourself if this Special Projects seat would exist if your partner were not a co-owner of the company. If the honest answer is no, then the seat should not exist on your Accountability Chart.

If there are legitimate strategic initiatives that need ownership, they must be clearly defined and placed within an existing department, or designed as a highly structured, temporary role with explicit boundaries. For example, if the goal is to evaluate potential acquisitions, that role should reside cleanly under the Finance or Corporate Development seat, reporting directly to the Integrator™.

Your partner must understand that stepping out of daily operations means truly letting go of the seats they are leaving. They cannot hover in a nebulous advisory role while your team tries to execute. If they want to step back, they should transition to a pure owner or board seat that sits outside the daily operational Accountability Chart, allowing the active leadership team to run the business cleanly.