We recently made a major pivot in our business model, but our leadership team structure still reflects our old way of doing things, causing massive confusion. How do we realign the team without triggering a turf war?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

A major strategic pivot always requires a complete redesign of your Accountability Chart. Trying to force a new business model into an old organizational structure will create friction, confusion, and ultimately, failure.

Separating Seats from People

To realign your team without triggering defensive behavior, you must separate the seats from the people. During your next quarterly offsite, take your current Accountability Chart off the wall. Start with a completely blank whiteboard.

With your leadership team, design the ideal structure for the new business model. Do not think about who currently sits where or what their titles are. Focus entirely on the seats and functions the company needs to hit its three-year picture. For guidance on structural changes, consider the question, [How should an owner use Thinking Time to design the next iteration of the Accountability Chart for an exit?](/qa/thinking-time-accountability-chart-exit-prep).

Defining Roles and Placing People

Once the ideal structure is designed:

• Define the five major roles for each seat.
• Only then do you begin to place names into those seats.
• Use the GWC tool (Gets it, Wants it, Capacity to do it) to ensure the right people are in the right seats. The GWC tool is crucial for making objective decisions about who fits where, as discussed in [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).

This process reduces political posturing because everyone has agreed on the structure before they know how it affects them personally. Some leaders may find their roles have shrunk, while others have grown. If you are grappling with how to split roles, the question, [Our company is expanding rapidly, and I need to split our massive Operations seat into two distinct roles. How do I execute this structural change on the leadership team without causing a turf war?](/qa/splitting-operations-seat-on-accountability-chart) offers valuable insights.

Be prepared for some hard conversations. If a legacy leader no longer GWCs their new seat, you must address it openly. Aligning your structure to your strategy is the only way to ensure your pivot succeeds. This approach helps in preventing leadership team conflicts, such as those discussed in [Two of my directors are constantly fighting over who owns our new operational systems. How do we resolve this turf war without causing a permanent rift?](/qa/resolving-leadership-turf-wars-accountability-chart).

Related questions

• [How should an owner use Thinking Time to design the next iteration of the Accountability Chart for an exit?](/qa/thinking-time-accountability-chart-exit-prep)
• [Our company is expanding rapidly, and I need to split our massive Operations seat into two distinct roles. How do I execute this structural change on the leadership team without causing a turf war?](/qa/splitting-operations-seat-on-accountability-chart)
• [Two of my directors are constantly fighting over who owns our new operational systems. How do we resolve this turf war without causing a permanent rift?](/qa/resolving-leadership-turf-wars-accountability-chart)
• [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)