How should an owner manage the tension when the Accountability Chart eliminates a legacy leadership role and replaces it with a completely new functional seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

One of the hardest moments in an EOS rollout is when the leadership team designs the forward-looking Accountability Chart without considering names, and the exercise exposes that an existing executive seat is obsolete. An owner often feels deep personal loyalty to the person occupying that legacy role, especially if they helped build the business in its early years.

You cannot allow sentimental loyalty to dictate organizational design. The first principle of the Accountability Chart is structure first, people second. You must define the right seats to take the company to the next level of revenue and complexity over the next six to twelve months, completely detached from current titles, salaries, or personalities.

Once the structure is locked, you evaluate your people against the new seats using GWC. Does the legacy leader genuinely Get it, Want it, and have the Capacity to do the work required by the five major roles of the new seat? If yes, place them in the seat and establish clear Scorecard metrics.

If they do not GWC the new seat, you must have an open, honest conversation immediately. Explore whether there is another functional seat on the chart where they are an ideal fit and match your Core Values. If no seat exists, your obligation to the rest of the company is to transition them out professionally and generously. Compromising your operational structure to protect an individual ego handicaps the entire leadership team and stalls company growth.