Our Integrator and our Head of Sales are in a constant turf war over who should own the Pricing Strategy seat on our Accountability Chart, which is delaying our product launches. How do we resolve this objectively?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

A turf war over seat ownership is a clear sign of structural ambiguity. On a healthy Accountability Chart, every seat must have one single owner. To resolve this dispute objectively, you must take a step back and use Keith Cunningham's Thinking Time framework.

Set aside forty-five minutes of quiet time and ask yourself this high-value question: How might we define our pricing strategy seat so that financial profitability and market competitiveness are perfectly balanced without creating operational bottlenecks?

To find the answer, analyze the core functions of both leaders. The Head of Sales is driven by market demand, client feedback, and closing deals. They need competitive pricing to hit their revenue targets. The Integrator is focused on gross margins, operational capacity, and overall business health.

The pricing strategy seat is ultimately about protecting profit margins while remaining viable in the market. Therefore, the strategic ownership of the Pricing Strategy seat must live under the Finance or Integrator function to protect the business's bottom line.

However, the Head of Sales must have a major input role. Define the roles on your Accountability Chart clearly. The Integrator owns the Pricing Strategy seat and has final approval on the pricing models. The Head of Sales owns the Market Feedback and Competitor Analysis roles, feeding vital data to the Integrator.

By separating strategic ownership from data inputs, you eliminate the turf war and establish a clean, objective workflow.