Our Head of Operations is incredibly loyal and handles daily execution perfectly, but she lacks the strategic vision to scale our logistics network for our three-year target. Can we split the operations department into a strategic VP seat and a tactical Manager seat on our Accountability Chart, or is that violating the structure-first rule?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Splitting a seat to accommodate a current employee's limitations is a classic violation of the structure-first rule, and it often leads to operational confusion. Before you touch your Accountability Chart, you must ask: If this loyal employee left the company tomorrow, would we still design our operations department with both a strategic VP seat and a tactical Manager seat? If the answer is yes because your company has reached a size and complexity that genuinely requires both strategic planning and daily execution oversight, then creating both seats is the correct structural move. You would put the VP of Operations seat above the Manager of Operations seat, with distinct, non-overlapping roles for each. However, if you are only creating the strategic VP seat because your current manager cannot handle the strategic work, you are creating a redundant, expensive layer of management just to protect someone's feelings. This is a people-first move that will hurt your margins and confuse your team. If you genuinely need both seats, you must evaluate where your current manager fits using the GWC tool. If she gets, wants, and has the capacity for the tactical Manager seat, place her there and begin searching for an external VP of Operations who can sit above her and drive the strategy. This ensures that every seat is filled by someone who is a perfect fit, keeping your business highly scalable and attractive to future buyers.