I want to tell you about two partners running a growing professional services firm.
They were looking at exactly the same problem and reaching two different conclusions.
Two team leads weren’t performing. She wanted to move fast - have the conversation, set a timeline, exit them if nothing changed. He agreed they weren’t performing, but kept circling back to the bigger picture. Those roles were part of where the business was heading. He didn’t want to dismantle them without a plan for what came next.
For a moment, it looked like disagreement.
It wasn’t. They were each doing their actual job. They just hadn’t named it yet.
Two jobs, two ways of thinking
He’s the rainmaker. Big picture, fast paced, full of ideas. Focused on the marketplace - the go-to-market proposition, strategic partnerships, deals, recruitment for the future, the long- term vision and roadmap. Looking at those same two roles, he was already thinking about who should replace them and how that fit the bigger plan.
She’s the integrator. Focused on making the business actually run - people, performance, accountability, delivery against standard. Looking at the same two roles, she saw the clearest fix: have the conversation now, set the standard, act on it.
Neither view was wrong. They were solving the same problem through two different lenses - one looking forward, one looking at today.
The moment they named that, the conversation shifted from disagreement to division of labour:
“You take the lead on managing the people and the performance side. I’ll crack on, with your support, on the strategic recruitment for the roles we need to upgrade.”
That single sentence did more for the business than months of circling the same two names.
What the team was actually living with
Before that conversation, the team underneath them had been getting mixed signals without anyone intending it. Her urgency was “sort this now.” His was “don’t move until we know who’s next.” Nobody beneath them could tell which instruction to follow, or whose call actually carried the decision.
And accountability became almost impossible to drive. You can’t hold someone to a standard when the instruction depends on which partner they spoke to that day.
This is the part that’s easy to miss. The friction at the top doesn’t stay at the top. It cascades straight through the business.
What changed once the roles were named
The underperformance didn’t disappear overnight. The conversations still had to happen. The replacements still had to be found.
But the drag disappeared.
“Unless they upgrade themselves, we need to upgrade them”
became the shared standard - agreed once, not re-litigated every time a name came up. She owned the performance conversation. He owned who came next. Each could move at full speed in their lane, trusting the other to own theirs.
I’ve worked through this same separation with a number of scale-up leadership teams, and the breakthrough is consistent. Once decision rights are clear at the top, accountability becomes something you can actually drive - because everyone knows exactly who owns what, and so does the team beneath them.
The question worth sitting with
If you’re a single founder, the question is whether you’re trying to be the rainmaker and the integrator at once - and whether that’s quietly capping how fast you can grow.
If you lead alongside a partner, the question is sharper: have you actually agreed who owns the marketplace and who owns the machine? Or is your team currently absorbing the cost of two leaders who haven’t had this conversation yet?
If that feels familiar, feel free to drop me a message, or book a Free Growth Strategy session below - always happy to share perspective on how others are navigating it.
PS: If you’d find it useful as a working reference, I’ve also put together a short Visionary & Integrator Role Guide - covering responsibilities, traits, strengths and watch-outs for each role. Worth having in front of you if this is a conversation you and a partner need to have:
