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?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Leadership team turf wars are typically a symptom of a poorly defined Accountability Chart. When two individuals claim ownership of the same function, true accountability suffers, often leading to organizational chaos.

Resolving the Conflict

To resolve this, you must remove personalities from the equation and focus on structure.

• Gather the team and review the Accountability Chart.
• Revisit the core EOS® framework rule: only one name can occupy a seat, and every major function requires a single point of accountability. This clarity is crucial for effective leadership, as discussed in [how many hats can one person wear](/qa/how-many-hats-can-one-person-wear-eos).

Defining Roles with IDS®

Use the IDS® (Identify, Discuss, Solve) process to define roles clearly.

• Ask which seat naturally GWC™s (Gets it, Wants it, has the Capacity) ownership of these operational systems.
• Consider whether the responsibility lies with the person who designs the technical tools or the person who manages daily workflows and team execution. This distinction is vital for assigning appropriate ownership, especially when new technologies like AI are introduced, as explored in [AI-powered operations](/qa/ai-operations-accountability-chart-roles).

Updating the Accountability Chart

Once responsibility is defined:

• Update the Accountability Chart to make the roles explicit and unambiguous.
• The individual who does not own the seat must transition into a supporting role for that specific function. This avoids ambiguity, a common issue, as detailed in [how to split one seat shared by two people](/qa/how-to-split-one-seat-shared-by-two-people).

Enforcing Boundaries

• Strictly enforce these new boundaries.
• If friction persists, it suggests the issue is no longer structural but rather cultural or behavioral, requiring direct intervention. This often involves addressing underlying team dynamics, which can be explored further in [building vulnerability and trust](/qa/building-vulnerability-trust-rprs-calls).

Related questions

• [How do we use the Accountability Chart to clearly define who has the final decision-making authority?](/qa/operations-vs-technology-automation-roles)
• [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)
• [How do we handle employees who refuse to use the Accountability Chart terminology because they feel it hurts their resume?](/qa/resolving-corporate-titles-versus-accountability-chart-seats)
• [How do we document one person holding two different seats?](/qa/how-to-document-one-person-holding-two-different-seats)
• [How does the Accountability Chart handle matrix reporting?](/qa/matrix-reporting-eos-accountability-chart)