When a company is in high-growth mode, roles and responsibilities are frequently in flux. More clients, tighter deadlines, and a broader feature set mean everyone is hustling to deliver. Here’s what typically happens:

1. Rapid Scaling: The product roadmap, team size, and scope of work expand so quickly that formally documented responsibilities often can’t keep up.
2. Cross-Functional Overlaps: You suddenly find yourself collaborating with a variety of stakeholders, engineering, sales, marketing, operations, who each have different (or sometimes conflicting) objectives.
3. Evolving Skill Sets: Individuals may step up to cover gaps (especially in smaller teams). A Product Manager might dabble in solution architecture, or a CTO might temporarily handle process optimization if that’s the urgent need.

All this hustle is good for the business but can create confusion over “who’s supposed to be doing what.” And when something fails, a missed deadline, insufficient market research, or technical debt piling up, pointing out the responsible party becomes complicated. It’s no longer a black-and-white scenario because tasks often span multiple roles.

The Complexity of Identifying the Failing Team Member

Let’s say our financial software product runs into a significant issue. Maybe it’s a compliance risk that wasn’t discovered until late-stage testing, or perhaps a major feature that missed the market window. If responsibilities weren’t crystal clear, you might end up in a finger-pointing game:

• The Product Manager says the Program Manager should have accounted for cross-team dependencies.
• The Program Manager says the Delivery Manager should have managed resources more efficiently.
• The Delivery Manager might argue the CTO needed to ensure better architecture, and so on…

Because of overlapping responsibilities, each role might genuinely believe that certain tasks weren’t theirs in the first place. This can lead to tension, confusion, and stalls in progress.

Skill Importance by Role (0-20 Scale) – Ordered by Product Manager Priority

To bring more clarity, let’s look at a snapshot of how each role views certain skills, ranked on a scale from 0 to 20. A higher number indicates a greater importance placed on that skill by that role. Below is the table pulled directly from the skill matrix we use for our imaginary financial software project.

What This Tells Us

• Product Managers naturally value Roadmap Ownership and Customer Focus at the top (scores of 20).
• Program Managers and Delivery Managers both rate Stakeholder Management, Cross-Team Collaboration, and Leadership & People Management quite high (often 18 or 20).
• The CTO prioritizes Innovation & Technology Strategy, Technical Understanding, and System Architecture the most (scores of 20).

This snapshot helps teams see where overlap might occur. For instance, “Cross-Team Collaboration” is highly rated by all roles, meaning multiple people might step in to fill the gap, sometimes causing confusion about who is truly responsible.

Who Should Take Action? (YES/NO Table with Final Decision-Maker Highlighted)

Beyond seeing how each role values particular skills, we also need to define who actually takes ownership of each area. Below is a simple YES/NO table showing where action is expected and who the final decision-maker is in bold or highlighted (✅)

Key Takeaways

The Program Manager and Delivery Manager often share or overlap in “YES” answers, which can lead to confusion unless carefully delineated. They both handle collaboration, execution, and process tasks, but the final call might rest with one or the other depending on the specific issue.

The Product Manager is the final decision-maker for areas related to product direction (Roadmap Ownership, Customer Focus, etc.).

The CTO is the final decision-maker for technology-related areas (Innovation & Technology Strategy, Technical Understanding, System Architecture, etc.).

Wrapping Up: Building a Framework for Accountability

When roles overlap in a fast-paced environment, confusion is almost inevitable, but not insurmountable. You can mitigate the chaos by:

1. Define Responsibilities Early: Assign ownership at the beginning of projects using a structured responsibility matrix.
2. Use Decision-Making Tables: Clearly mark who makes the final call in ambiguous areas.
3. Set Clear KPIs: Tie performance to measurable outcomes rather than vague role expectations.
4. Encourage Open Communication: Teams should feel comfortable clarifying ownership rather than assuming someone else will handle an issue.
5. Document Role Adjustments: As the business scales, responsibilities will shift. Keeping an evolving record ensures alignment.

By focusing on clarity and collaboration, you create an environment where everyone knows what they’re supposed to do and who to go to if they’re not sure. This not only helps pinpoint inefficiencies or missteps more quickly but also fosters a team spirit that’s vital for success in a fast-growing company.

I hope this helps anyone reading, to structure your teams in ways that minimize finger-pointing and maximize collective success.