Our two senior sales reps both want to lead our sales department, and we are tempted to put both of their names in our new Head of Sales seat to avoid making a hard choice. Why is this a recipe for disaster and how do we resolve it?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When two people share a single seat on the Accountability Chart, true accountability is completely destroyed. If two individuals are responsible for sales growth, then ultimately, no one is truly accountable.

The Problems with Shared Seats

Assigning two people to a single leadership seat leads to several critical issues:

• Confusion for direct reports: Team members won't know who to report to or whose direction to follow, creating chaos.
• Inconsistent decision-making: With two leaders, there will inevitably be conflicting strategies and choices, undermining progress.
• Finger-pointing: When targets are missed, blame will be shifted between the co-leaders, preventing constructive problem-solving.
• Destroyed accountability: The core principle of the Accountability Chart, where each seat has clear accountabilities owned by one person, is violated. This undermines the clarity and focus needed to [review our weekly scorecard in under five minutes](/qa/how-to-review-scorecard-under-five-minutes) effectively.

In the EOS (Entrepreneurial Operating System) framework, there is a strict rule: only one name can occupy a seat. This principle helps to prevent issues like [resolving leadership turf wars](/qa/resolving-leadership-turf-wars-accountability-chart) and ensures clear ownership.

How to Resolve This Issue

To resolve this situation, follow these steps:

1. Separate the seat from the individuals: First, identify the ideal future-state of your Accountability Chart. You need a single leader for the sales department who will be held accountable for:
• Hitting revenue targets
• Managing the team
• Executing the sales strategy

2. Define the single role: Clearly outline the roles and responsibilities for this single Head of Sales seat.

3. Evaluate candidates using GWC: Objectively evaluate both senior sales reps using the Gets it, Wants it, and has the Capacity to do it (GWC) framework.
• One candidate may truly get, want, and have the capacity for the leadership responsibilities.
• The other might prefer to focus entirely on high-level selling without the administrative burden of management, which is a common scenario. This is crucial for ensuring a candidate is not only a great performer but also has the capacity for the leadership role, avoiding situations where [a leader cannot scale](/qa/leader-cannot-scale-transition).

4. Make a hard business decision: If both candidates genuinely GWC the seat and you cannot choose between them, you must make a strategic choice. You have two primary options:
• Select one leader: Choose one of the senior reps to lead the department, understanding that the other may choose to leave.
• Split the department structurally: Only if it makes genuine business sense, you can split the sales department into two distinct, separate seats. Examples include:
• Head of New Business
• Head of Account Management

What you absolutely cannot do is put both names in one seat to keep the peace. This approach will inevitably lead to the problems outlined above and hinder your company's growth, much like [sharing the Integrator seat](/qa/sharing-integrator-seat-partners) can cause decision paralysis.