Our leadership team has been arguing for three quarters about whether customer onboarding belongs under the Sales seat or the Operations seat, and we are completely deadlocked. How can we use Keith Cunningham's Thinking Time framework to break this structural stalemate and make a clean decision?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a structural debate drags on for three quarters, it means your leadership team is focused on symptoms and personalities rather than objective design. To break this deadlock, you must step away from the daily noise and dedicate uninterrupted Thinking Time to the problem.

The rule of thumb for the Accountability Chart is that every critical process must have a single point of accountability. When onboarding is shared or poorly defined, clients fall through the cracks and teams blame each other. To find the answer, dedicate forty five minutes of quiet time to answer a high value question. For example, ask yourself: how might we structure our onboarding seat so that client handoffs are seamless, and which department is naturally incentivized to ensure long term retention?

Sales is typically incentivized by acquisition and volume. Operations is incentivized by capacity, delivery, and retention. If onboarding is highly technical and directly impacts long term satisfaction, it almost always belongs under Operations. If onboarding is highly consultative and involves immediate upsell opportunities, it may belong under Sales.

Once you have your answer, bring it to your next Level 10 Meeting™ and use the IDS® process. Do not ask for a vote. In EOS®, the Integrator has the ultimate authority to make the final call on structural deadlocks. Present the logical conclusion from your Thinking Time, adjust the Accountability Chart, and establish a clear metric to track onboarding success. This will permanently resolve the issue and allow your team to move forward.