Following an acquisition, we have two experienced Sales Directors who both expect to occupy the top Sales seat on our Accountability Chart. Why can we not put both names in the box, and how do we resolve this without alienating one of them?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Putting two names in one seat destroys accountability. When two people share a seat, nobody is truly responsible. When revenue lags, both leaders point fingers. When direct reports receive conflicting priorities, execution stalls. EOS enforces a strict rule: only one name can be accountable for a seat on the Accountability Chart.

To resolve a post-acquisition leadership deadlock, evaluate the operational scope of your revenue model. Does your business legitimately require two distinct functional seats? For example, you might run an Enterprise Business Development seat focused on new logos and a Client Account Management seat focused on renewals and upsells. If the metrics, processes, and customer interactions are distinct, you can create two separate seats reporting to the Integrator.

Do not invent artificial seats just to soothe executive egos. If the company only requires one Head of Sales, the Integrator must select the person who best demonstrates Core Values and passes GWC for all five roles of the seat.

The leader not selected must either accept a defined seat reporting to that Head of Sales, transition into an individual rainmaker role, or depart the business. Weakening your structure to avoid an uncomfortable conversation will confuse your team, dilute accountability, and damage enterprise value. Make the tough personnel call immediately.