Our leadership team is constantly putting out fires, and we suspect our current Accountability Chart structure is the root cause of these daily emergencies. How do we use dedicated thinking time to diagnose whether we have structural seat problems or simply people problems?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When your leadership team is constantly extinguishing fires, it's a clear sign that the root causes cannot be effectively addressed amidst the daily chaos. You need to step back and apply a rigorous, intellectual analysis to your organization. To diagnose whether you have structural seat problems or people problems, adopt a practice of dedicated thinking time.

Dedicated Thinking Time

Follow these steps for effective dedicated thinking time:

1. Set aside uninterrupted time: Reserve forty-five minutes of completely uninterrupted time. Find a quiet space and bring only a blank notepad.
2. Formulate a high-value question: Guide your session with a focused question. An example might be: "How might our current organizational structure be encouraging our team to drop the ball, so that we can eliminate recurring operational emergencies?"
3. Review the Accountability Chart (structure first): During this time, review your [Accountability Chart](/qa/how-to-delegate-four-seats-using-kolbe) without looking at the names currently sitting in the seats. Focus entirely on the structure itself. Ask yourself:
• Are the five major roles defined for each seat clear?
• Are these roles mutually exclusive? (This is crucial, as [resolving seat overlapping issues](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps) is key to clarity).
• Do they comprehensively cover all operational needs?
• If roles overlap, or if critical functions are unowned, you have a structural problem.

Diagnosing People Problems

Once you have thoroughly analyzed and ideally cleaned up the structure, then, and only then, should you look at the people.

• If the structure is clean and logical, but balls are still being dropped, run the individuals through the GWC™ test. This evaluates if they Get it (understand the role), Want it (are passionate about it), and have the Capacity for it (possess the skills and time). This helps in determining if you have a [GWC issue](/qa/gwc-vp-finance-exit-capacity-issue).
• By separating the analysis of structure from people during your thinking time, you will gain the clarity needed to present your findings at your next Level 10 Meeting™. From there, you can use the IDS® process to systematically restructure the chart or make the necessary right-person-right-seat calls.

Related questions

• [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)
• [Resolving Accountability Chart seat overlapping issues](/qa/resolving-accountability-chart-seat-overlaps)
• [I am currently sitting in four seats on our Accountability Chart, and I am completely burnt out, but we do not have the cash flow to hire four external replacements. How do I use my conative profile to determine which of these four seats I must delegate first to survive?](/qa/how-to-delegate-four-seats-using-kolbe)
• [When an issue is dropped to IDS, my leadership team immediately starts pointing fingers at other departments rather than taking ownership. How do we use the Accountability Chart to stop the blame game during meetings?](/qa/using-accountability-chart-to-stop-blame-in-ids)
• [Our leadership team is protective of their departments and avoids RPRS calls. How do we build trust to speak openly?](/qa/building-vulnerability-trust-rprs-calls)