One of my favorite movies is the 1999 release Office Space. The main character, Peter Gibbons, played by Ron Livingston, has a dead-end job-filled stereotypical corporate job references, including the TPS report and the memo sent out to use a new cover sheet. Because Peter forgot the new cover sheet, he had the same conversation 8 times with 8 different bosses. 

The example of the “TPS Report” isn’t Peter’s issue. His issue is he had to have the same conversation 8 times. The time and effort associated with one boss telling Peter one thing and another something else is exhausting. Moreover, who’s responsible for Peter and his department’s performance?    

Understanding who is responsible for the performance of a position or a department has incredible implications for the department but also for the person being managed and the person managing the department or position. If a manager has a dotted line of responsibility, they have a role in the success of the position but none of the responsibility for the performance of the position. For example, if the vice president of sales has a dotted line of responsibility to the sales staff and a location or regional manager has a solid line of responsibility to the sales staff, who should be held responsible for the performance of the sales staff?

In this role, the VP of sales — the dotted line of responsibility — is responsible for allocating the correct amount of resources to the sales team so they can have the opportunity to be successful. The resources I am speaking of are internal program dollars, manufacturer program dollars, sales training and lead generation, etc. The role of the regional or location manager — the solid line of responsibility — is the day-to-day functions, individual used equipment turn, new market share implication and execution of leads.

The management functions of both positions are essential to the success of the position, but have dynamically different roles in the formula of success. The VP of sales should work “on the business,” looking out and up, while the regional or location manager should work “in the business,” looking down and in. Ultimately, the sales department’s success is shared by the VP and the regional or location manager, but they have varying levels of responsibility for departmental success.

The VP should not be held responsible for the individual efforts of each sales rep. He should be held accountable for the areas in which they directly influence the sales process. The sales process should consist of these fundamentals but not limited to the relationship with the manufacturer, the sales mix, the used equipment turn, the speed of the washout cycle and the process associated with revenue movement from customer to company, the invoicing process. The direct reports of the VP of sales should have hands-on experience in the levers controlling sales mix, used equipment turn and washout. The dotted line of responsibility is a support function only.

The location or regional manager should be responsible for everything else, such as market share, margin, execution of leads, the overall success of their area of sales and the individual sales reps. Location and regional sales managers are responsible for the boots-on-the-ground grind of the day-to-day. The biggest reason is that the location or regional manager has the least number of direct reports and is more likely involved with each customer and the customer’s satisfaction. If you are a location manager with 2-3 sales reps, you should be working in the business and understanding what each customer wants and how they like to be dealt with. Extrapolate that across 5, 10 or 20 stores. 

There’s no way one VP of sales can understand what 10, 20 or 40 sales reps need or how to deal with 500-1,500 customers individually. At that point, the VP in a support role relies heavily on the input of the sales reps and location manager. 

The VP of sales and location or regional manager all have essential roles that are key to the growth and success of the business. They both have dynamically different roles that render them responsible for other parts of the development and success of the business. 

If you have dotted lines of responsibility and are holding managers accountable for the outcomes of staff who report to managers with solid lines of responsibility, it will create an environment of silos with a lack of trust and ownership. Everything and everyone will have a scapegoat.