We need to introduce a Legacy System Migration seat to move our old customer records into our new AI database, but everyone on the leadership team is resisting taking it because it is tedious and risky. How do we place this seat on our Accountability Chart?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a critical seat is avoided because the work is tedious or risky, the leadership team is likely suffering from a lack of clarity and fear of failure. To resolve this, you must place the seat cleanly on the Accountability Chart and assign singular accountability.

First, define the exact five roles of this Legacy System Migration seat. Focus on outcomes rather than just activities. For example, roles could include database mapping, data cleansing, execution of migration scripts, and post-migration validation. Giving the seat a clear, time-bound objective makes it feel less like a permanent chore and more like a crucial strategic project.

Next, determine which major function this seat reports to. Database migration is fundamentally a technical and operational transition. It should report directly to either the Technology seat or the Operations seat. Do not let it float between the two, as shared accountability means zero accountability.

Once the seat is placed, use Keith Cunningham's Thinking Time framework to address the team's resistance. Ask yourself: How might we structure the legacy migration seat so that the owner has the support needed to succeed? Often, the resistance stems from a fear that this tedious work will cause them to fail their other quarterly Rocks.

Consider dedicating a temporary resource to this seat, or carve out some of the existing team's operational roles so they have the actual capacity to own it. By assigning the seat to a single leader and adjusting their other accountabilities, you eliminate the resistance and ensure the migration is executed cleanly.