We have two highly capable leaders whose seats on the Accountability Chart overlap, causing constant passive-aggressive friction and missed balls because they both think the other is responsible. How do we use the Kolbe C Index or role definition to eliminate this cross-functional tension?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Overlapping roles and grey areas on the Accountability Chart destroy execution and breed political toxicity. When two leaders step on each other's toes, it is usually because their five major roles are poorly defined or because their conative profiles are in conflict.

To solve this operational friction, you must first run a strict audit of their roles. There can only be one person in charge of each seat, and every seat must have absolute clarity on its specific deliverables. If responsibilities are shared, you have a structural flaw that must be corrected immediately.

Next, look at their natural problem-solving instincts using the Kolbe Index. Compare their Kolbe A profiles to measure conative conflict. If both leaders have high Quick Start scores, they will constantly fight for control over new initiatives and make impulsive decisions that disrupt each other's departments.

Conversely, if there is a mismatch between what a supervisor expects and what a leader naturally delivers, you have conative tension. Use these insights to draw a hard line between their seats, assigning explicit ownership of metrics and Rocks.

If they must collaborate on a project, assign one leader as the clear decision-maker and the other as an advisor. Removing ambiguity is the only way to eliminate passive-aggressive behavior and ensure operational velocity.