Our company is expanding rapidly, and I need to split our massive Operations seat into two distinct roles. How do I execute this structural change on the leadership team without causing a turf war?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Splitting a major seat on your [Accountability Chart](/qa/how-to-fill-unwanted-seats-accountability-chart) can often trigger defensiveness and turf wars among leaders. This happens because individuals frequently associate their scope of control with their personal value within the organization. To navigate this structural change smoothly, the key is to detach personalities from the organizational structure.

Designing the New Structure

• Hold a dedicated leadership meeting: Focus solely on the organizational design of the company. Emphasize that no names will be assigned to seats at this stage. This helps in maintaining objectivity.
• Reference your three-year vision: Use your V/TO (Vision/Traction Organizer) to identify the precise functions your business needs to scale. This ensures the new structure aligns with long-term goals.
• Define core responsibilities: Clearly outline the responsibilities for each of the two new operational seats. Crucially, ensure there is no overlap in accountability between the roles to prevent future conflicts.

Assessing Leaders for New Seats

Once the new structure is firmly established, you can begin the process of evaluating your current leaders for these newly defined roles.

• Utilize the GWC tool: This tool helps assess if a leader Gets it, Wants it, and has the Capacity for a particular seat.
• Analyze conative profiles: Employ a tool like the Kolbe A Index to understand the natural working instincts of your leaders. This can reveal where they are most naturally inclined to succeed.
• For example, one new operations seat might require high Follow Through for consistent daily execution.
• Another seat might demand high Fact Finder for in-depth technical analysis and problem-solving. This [conative assessment](/qa/kolbe-sales-operations-conflict-handoffs) can be invaluable.
• Present as a growth opportunity: Frame the new structure as a necessary and positive step for company growth, rather than a demotion or promotion. This helps manage expectations and reduces the perception of winners and losers.

By keeping the focus on what is best for the organization's future, you can effectively depoliticize the transition and ensure a smoother implementation of the new operational structure. Understanding individual capacities and aligning them with the right roles is critical for success and avoiding [burnout](/qa/promoted-employee-burnout-conative-stress).

Related questions

• [How do we use the Kolbe A Index to diagnose why our Sales and Operations heads are constantly in conflict over project handoffs?](/qa/kolbe-sales-operations-conflict-handoffs)
• [Should we create a dedicated AI Operations seat on our Accountability Chart, or integrate AI into existing seats?](/qa/ai-operations-seat-accountability-chart)
• [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)
• [We have an employee who scores one hundred percent on our core values but fails the GWC for their current operations seat, and we have no other open seats on our Accountability Chart. Do we have to let them go?](/qa/right-person-wrong-seat-no-openings)
• [We have split our operations seat into Logistics and Customer Success, but the two leaders are constantly arguing about who owns the final delivery stage of our client onboarding process. How do we resolve this boundary dispute?](/qa/onboarding-ownership-split-seats)