We recently redesigned our Accountability Chart to split our operational lead into two distinct seats, but now both leaders are constantly stepping on each other's toes and fighting over who owns specific cross-functional workflows. How do we resolve this structural peer conflict?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Splitting a major seat on the Accountability Chart often creates operational friction if the boundaries are not crystal clear. When two leaders fight over cross-functional workflows, the issue is rarely personal animosity. It is almost always a structural problem caused by overlapping roles and unclear hand-offs.

To resolve this peer conflict, you must use the IDS® process to clarify roles and establish clear accountability. Do not let this drag on, as it will quickly create camps within your departments and paralyze your operations.

Follow this process to restore alignment:
- Schedule a focused meeting with both leaders and the Integrator to review the newly designed Accountability Chart.
- Document the five major roles for each of the split seats. Ensure there is absolutely zero overlap between their primary responsibilities.
- Map out the specific cross-functional workflows where they are stepping on each other's toes. Clearly define the point of hand-off, establishing exactly where one leader's accountability ends and the other's begins.
- Have both leaders agree to a communication protocol for resolving day-to-day operational overlaps without escalating the issue to the Integrator.

If they still struggle to collaborate after their roles are clearly defined, evaluate their conative fit using the Kolbe A™ Index. One of them may be naturally suited to system design while the other excels at execution, and aligning their tasks with their conative strengths will naturally resolve the friction.