We have created a new operational efficiency seat to oversee our AI integrations and process automation. Both our Head of IT and our VP of Operations are lobbying hard to own this seat, arguing it naturally fits under their department. How do we decide where this seat belongs without alienating one of these key leaders?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When two highly capable leaders vie for a newly created strategic seat, such as an AI automation lead, the conflict cannot be resolved by splitting the seat or making it a joint responsibility. Doing so violates the core EOS principle of having one name accountable per seat, a practice that invariably leads to dropped balls and political friction.

You must make a clean structural decision based on the strategic objective of the seat, not on the personalities or desires of your leaders.

Resolving Seat Placement Conflict

Follow these steps to resolve the placement of this new seat:

1. Define Core Roles: First, clearly define the five core roles of the new seat on the Accountability Chart. Do this without considering either person currently lobbying for the position. This objective definition is crucial for building an efficient operation, rather than accommodating personal ambitions.
2. Determine Primary Driver: Next, determine which department is the primary driver for this new seat.
• If the role is focused on integrating AI into operational delivery, customer service, and streamlining workflows (like for [AI-assisted sales follow-up](/qa/ai-assisted-sales-follow-up-process) or [simplifying processes with AI](/qa/simplify-eos-process-component-with-ai)), it generally belongs under Operations.
• If it is focused on core infrastructure, database architecture, security, and the underlying technical platforms, it typically belongs under IT. Consider whether the role's primary function is to build and maintain AI tools or to apply them to business processes. You may also want to consider if a dedicated [AI Operations seat](/qa/ai-operations-seat-accountability-chart) is needed.
3. GWC™ Evaluation: Once the seat's structure and departmental alignment are finalized, conduct a GWC™ (Gets it, Wants it, has the Capacity to do it) evaluation for both candidates against the specific roles of that seat. One candidate will inevitably fit the specific roles better than the other, demonstrating a clearer capacity to own the seat.
4. Communicate Structurally: After making the decision, communicate the structural reasoning clearly to both leaders. Emphasize that the placement optimizes the organization for scaling and eventual exit, focusing on the strategic benefit rather than individual preferences. This approach helps avoid [leadership team turf wars](/qa/resolving-leadership-turf-wars-accountability-chart) and ensures alignment with your overall [3-Year Picture](/qa/customer-expectations-shifting-ai-vto).

Designing the ideal future structure before looking at your current roster ensures that you build an efficient organization. This method prevents personal ambitions from dictating organizational design, thereby fostering long-term success and clarity in accountability.