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 compete for a newly created strategic seat, like an AI automation lead, you cannot solve the conflict by splitting the seat or making it a joint responsibility. Doing so violates the core EOS principle of having one name accountable per seat, which only leads to dropped balls and political friction.

You must make a clean structural decision based on the strategic objective of the seat, not the personalities or desires of your leaders. Use this process to resolve the placement:
- Define the five core roles of the new seat on the Accountability Chart without thinking about either person.
- Determine which department is the primary driver of this seat. If the role is focused on integrating AI into operational delivery and customer service, it belongs under Operations. If it is focused on core infrastructure, database architecture, and security, it belongs under IT.
- Conduct a GWC evaluation on both candidates for the finalized seat structure. One candidate will inevitably fit the specific roles better than the other.
- Once you make the decision, communicate the structural reasoning clearly to both leaders, emphasizing that the placement optimizes the organization for scaling and eventual exit.

Designing the ideal future structure before looking at your current roster ensures that you build an efficient operation rather than accommodating personal ambitions.