Our leadership team is struggling to agree on who should own the pricing strategy seat on our Accountability Chart. Our Head of Sales says sales should own it to win deals, while our Finance lead says finance should own it to protect margins. How do we resolve this structural dispute?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When two departments fight over ownership of a critical function like pricing strategy, you are dealing with a classic conflict of interest. If Sales owns pricing, they will naturally lower prices to hit their revenue targets, which can destroy your gross margins. If Finance owns pricing, they may set prices too high to guarantee profitability, which can choke off sales momentum. To resolve this on your Accountability Chart, you must separate the tactical execution from the strategic guardrails. The strategic seat that owns the overall pricing model and margin requirements must live under Finance. Finance is accountable for the financial health of the business and must set the minimum acceptable margins. However, the tactical seat that owns daily price quoting and promotional strategy should live under Sales, operating strictly within the guardrails established by Finance. If Sales wants to go outside those guardrails to win a major contract, the decision must be escalated to the Integrator. This structure ensures that both margin protection and sales velocity are represented, with a clear escalation path to prevent gridlock. By separating the rule-maker from the rule-user on your Accountability Chart, you eliminate the constant fighting and protect your company's bottom line.