Our Head of Operations recently resigned, and our leadership team wants to split his roles across three existing seats on our Accountability Chart instead of hiring a replacement, claiming it will save us money and boost our EBITDA for our exit. Why is this a bad idea, and how do we handle this vacancy?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Splitting a critical leadership seat across three other existing seats is a classic trap that will destroy your operational execution and decrease your business value. When you distribute the roles of a major seat like Head of Operations, you violate a core principle of the Accountability Chart: you must have only one name accountable per seat.

When three people are partially responsible for operations, nobody is truly accountable. Important decisions will stall, balls will drop, and your metrics will decline. Furthermore, buyers are looking for a stable, professional leadership team. If they see an Accountability Chart with a missing Head of Operations where the roles are fragmented, they will view your operations as highly unstable and risky.

To handle this vacancy correctly, you must keep the Head of Operations seat on your Accountability Chart and mark it as vacant. Do not delete the seat or absorb its roles permanently. Keeping it visible forces the leadership team to remain focused on finding a permanent solution.

In the interim, you must assign one person to sit in that seat temporarily. That person must have the capacity to manage the roles, even if it means they are temporarily sitting in two seats. Usually, the Integrator must step in to own the seat temporarily. This keeps the reporting lines clear and maintains accountability. At the same time, you must actively recruit a replacement. If you are close to an exit, consider hiring an experienced interim or fractional Head of Operations.