We have grown rapidly and our Head of Operations seat has become too complex. We want to put two of our top managers in this seat as co-directors to split the workload equally and share the decision-making. Why is having two names in one seat on the Accountability Chart a recipe for operational disaster, and how do we split it correctly?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Putting two names in one seat on your Accountability Chart is the ultimate way to kill accountability. When two people are responsible for a seat, nobody is responsible. It creates structural confusion, slows down decision-making, and invites finger-pointing when things go wrong. If your Head of Operations seat has grown too complex, the solution is to split the seat, not to share it.

To do this right, look at the actual work being done and divide the responsibilities into two distinct, separate seats. Each seat must have its own unique title and five specific roles that do not overlap. For example, you might create a Director of Logistics seat to handle physical supply chain processes, and a Director of Customer Experience seat to handle client relations. Both of these new seats would report directly to your Integrator.

Once the new structure is designed, you must evaluate your two managers against the new seats using the GWC filter. Do they get, want, and have the capacity for their respective new seats? If one manager has a high Follow Thru conative profile on the Kolbe index, they might be perfect for the logistics seat, while the other might be better suited for customer relations. Do not compromise on this rule. Every seat on your Accountability Chart must have exactly one owner. Having a single point of accountability is the only way to run a clean, scalable operation.