We have two project managers sharing a single Head of Project Delivery seat because we did not want to hurt feelings, but now tasks are slipping. How do we split this seat structurally without creating a dual-reporting nightmare?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When two people share one seat, accountability dies. If two people are responsible, nobody is. This is a structural flaw that always leads to dropped balls and finger-pointing because there is no single throat to choke.

To fix this, you must immediately split the seat based on the needs of the business, not the feelings of your team. This is a critical step to ensure clear accountability and prevent issues like those discussed in [resolving seat overlapping issues](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps).

How to Split the Seat Structurally

Start by looking at the functions of the business. You can split the seat by:

• Client type: For example, create "Head of Enterprise Projects" and "Head of SMB Projects."
• Project size: Divide responsibilities based on the scope or complexity of projects.
• Geographic region: Assign ownership by different locations or markets.

Each newly defined seat must have its own unique set of five roles on your Accountability Chart. This ensures clarity and avoids the decision paralysis that can arise from shared responsibilities, as highlighted in [sharing the Integrator seat](/qa/sharing-integrator-seat-partners).

Evaluating Individuals for New Seats

Once the structure is clean, you must evaluate both individuals against the newly defined seats using the GWC filter.

• Get it: Do they understand the core functions and requirements of the seat?
• Want it: Are they passionate about owning these responsibilities?
• Capacity to do it: Do they possess the necessary skills, time, and mental capacity to perform the roles effectively?

If both individuals truly GWC their new seats, you have solved the problem. If one does not GWC the new seat, you have a Right Person, Right Seat issue that you must resolve. This situation is similar to the challenges faced when a [leader cannot scale](/qa/leader-cannot-scale-transition) into a more strategic role, or when dealing with a [VP of Finance lacking capacity for exit planning](/qa/gwc-vp-finance-exit-capacity-issue).

Never compromise the integrity of your Accountability Chart to avoid a difficult conversation. If you keep two names in one seat, you are choosing comfort over performance. Split the seat, assign clear metrics, and hold each person accountable to their own specific box on the chart. This clarity is essential for setting effective [weekly measurables](/qa/back-office-weekly-scorecard-measurables) and avoiding the blame game often seen when [issues are dropped to IDS](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids).

Related questions

• [How do we resolve seat overlapping issues?](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps)
• [My business partner and I want to share the Integrator seat on our Accountability Chart because we both have equal equity and want to run daily operations together. Why is this causing our department heads to experience massive decision paralysis, and how do we fix it?](/qa/sharing-integrator-seat-partners)
• [What concrete weekly measurables should we track for our accounting and IT seats to keep them accountable without resorting to subjective check the box metrics?](/qa/back-office-weekly-scorecard-measurables)
• [When an issue is dropped to IDS, my leadership team immediately starts pointing fingers at other departments rather than taking ownership. How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids)
• [Our long-tenured VP of Finance is a perfect core values fit and gets and wants their seat, but they lack the capacity to build the complex forward-looking financial forecasting models that prospective buyers are demanding for our exit. How do we handle this GWC issue without firing a loyal leader?](/qa/gwc-vp-finance-exit-capacity-issue)