My leadership team is arguing over who sits where on the Accountability Chart. How do we resolve these turf wars without breaking our culture?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Turf wars occur when your Accountability Chart design is personal rather than structural. The golden rule of EOS® is that you must design the structure of your organization first, completely ignoring the personalities, history, and egos of the people currently on your team. Start by defining the essential functions your business needs to get to the next level. For most companies, this means Sales and Marketing, Operations, and Finance, led by an Integrator. Under each seat on the Accountability Chart, define the five major roles that seat is responsible for. Keep it simple and focused. Only after the structure is finalized do you begin looking at the people. To place someone in a seat, they must meet the GWC™ standard: they must Get it, Want it, and have the Capacity to do it. Get it means their natural wiring and intellect align with the role. Want it means they genuinely want to do the job. Capacity means they have the skills, time, and mental resources to execute. To make objective decisions, we recommend using behavioral assessments like the Predictive Index to map candidate profiles against the demands of the seat. Comparing these results with their Kolbe A Profile can also highlight potential conative stress if a seat requires behaviors that run counter to their natural instincts. If a leader does not fit the seat, they cannot stay in it, regardless of their tenure or personal relationship with you. Resolving these conflicts requires you to accept full responsibility as a leader, remove personal emotion from the equation, and make decisions that protect the health of the organization.