How WKT is organized, where decisions get made, and how strategy flows into operations.

A note on the day itself. The session opens with Chris walking the team through why this matters and why now, with a focused walkthrough of the Persona-Based Revenue Operations approach in Part IV. That section is the centerpiece of the strategic conversation, not background reading — it represents the most significant operating shift in the architecture and deserves real time in the room. The chart exercise itself follows, with the architecture in Part III as the structural starting point and GWC as the test the room applies together.

The architecture below makes more sense if we name what WKT actually is, plainly:

That is a different company than a casual observer would describe. The shorthand version — "we sell training across multiple brands" — is true but shallow. The deeper version is what we are: a network-effects platform with content as a flywheel input and a credentialing layer that creates lock-in. That framing has been part of our company language for some time. The architecture below is how we finally align our operating structure around it.

There is a structural condition specific to WKT that shapes why this architecture has to work the way it does. WKT has been operating, organizationally, as a house of training brands. That framing has shaped which decisions pool where, which roles exist, and how the company moves. The architecture we are proposing reflects a different framing — WKT as a credentialing infrastructure network where publisher brands are content flowing through the network, not the structural identity of the company itself.

The old framing produces decisions that pool at the top because every brand-level question reaches the same desk. The new framing produces decisions that distribute because functions own outcomes across the network, not within brands. The architecture only operates inside the new framing. This is not a small change. It is the precondition for the architecture itself, and it is part of why the shape we are adopting is the shape we are adopting.

There is a second strategic anchor worth naming because it shapes how we have drawn R&D.

We have drawn R&D as a single function — not eLearning and Product as parallel functions, but R&D as one converging capability with eLearning and Product as departments inside it. This is not organizational convenience. It is a structural recognition of where the business is going. The eLearning team is not building courses for the platform team to deliver. They are co-designing learning experiences where content and technology are inseparable. The platform team is not building software for content to live in. They are building credentialing infrastructure where the technology is the learning experience.

Whoever leads R&D leads the convergence of learning and technology as WKT's core capability. That is a real strategic mandate, not just a management role.

Most companies, including most well-run ones, default to a single hierarchy where the org chart determines reporting, reporting determines decision-making, and accountability sits with whoever is most senior. That works for many companies, and it can keep working at significant scale. It works less well in companies where the Visionary's contribution is the strategic moat — where vision execution is imperative to the company's success, where the senior leader's industry pulse and long-horizon relationships compound over years, and where being pulled into operations meaningfully degrades the upstream work that makes the company defensible. WKT is that kind of company.

The operating model we have chosen — EOS — is one disciplined way to keep accountability, organization, reporting, and decision-making clean as the company grows inside the new credentialing-network framing. It is not the only way, and it is not a verdict on companies that operate differently. We have chosen it because it fits the conditions WKT operates under: Visionary-led, vision-execution-imperative, transitioning out of the house-of-brands paradigm. The Accountability Chart maps accountability deliberately separate from the org chart. Decision rights are documented per seat. Reporting lines exist but are subordinate to accountability. The L10 processes cross-functional issues so they do not all flow to one person. This is the operating model the rest of the document explains how to operate inside.

The org chart shows where every person works and how they report. Chris sits at the top as CEO. Glenn reports to Chris as President. The five executive seats — Chief of Staff, Strategy & Industry Authority, RevOps, R&D, and Corporate — all report operationally to Glenn as part of the executive team.

Two dotted lines on the chart deserve specific explanation. Sue and Nick both have direct strategic access to Chris that flows alongside their operational reporting through Glenn. The dotted line is the connection that exists in EOS architecture for the Chief of Staff and Strategy seats specifically — both seats hold direction-related work that requires direct visibility to the Visionary. The dotted line does not mean dual reporting. It is not a second approval authority. It is not a way to bypass Glenn on operational matters. Sue and Nick still report operationally to Glenn for cadence, performance, oversight, and personnel matters. The dotted line means strategic access for direction-setting, industry pulse, and identity questions — nothing more, nothing less.

The chart we are proposing for day one is below. The framing matters as much as the content, so we are being explicit about what is settled and what is open before walking through it.

Sue's placement reflects her full transition into the Chief of Staff role with five core executive accountabilities — corporate work plan and executive cadence, board and corporate communications, operating discipline, cross-functional initiative tracking, and connective tissue across the V/I pair and the Leadership Team. Nick's placement reflects the formalization of work that has been happening informally for years; the seat carries decision authority over strategic priorities and pursuits.

The chart shows accountabilities, not titles. Each seat lists what that person owns, not what they are called. This is deliberate — the Accountability Chart is the what, not the who or the job description.

Several seats on the chart are held on a temporary basis — Glenn at RevOps, Chris at Demand, Mark at Corporate and at People & Operations, and the eLearning seat is shown as Open. The V/I/CoS layer applied GWC to every named placement on the chart, including the interim ones. The interim signal is intentional: these seats are bridges until the right permanent owner is in place, whether through a senior hire, an internal promotion, or a restructuring of how the function operates.

Each interim placement represents a function that needs structural attention beyond the chart exercise itself. The interim leader will run the conversations about how that function is shaped going forward — what the seat looks like in its permanent form, who the right person is to fill it, how the work is divided beneath it. Those conversations happen after the exercise, not during it. The chart exercise itself focuses on the seats as they exist today.

Each accountable function lead — Emma at R&D, Mark at Corporate, the future RevOps lead — will review and shape the structure under their seat over time. Whether eLearning content is a standalone seat or a workstream inside R&D, whether HR is a standalone function or distributed across roles, whether Marketing operates as one department or several — these are conversations the function leads will own after the exercise. The chart names the seats that exist now. It is the starting point, not the final word on internal structure.

WKT serves three customer personas, each with a different economic shape, time horizon, and operating posture:

Reseller is not a fourth persona — it is a sales motion that supports our publisher brands' channel partners and lives inside the Sales function.

Persona ownership is one of the most important shifts in this architecture, and it deserves direct explanation. The three personas have three distinct owners:

These owners are locked until a permanent RevOps function lead is in place. When that seat is filled, persona ownership may shift — that is part of what the new RevOps lead will work through with the persona owners, the V/I/CoS layer, and the broader team. But for now, the owners are named above and they hold the persona accountability with full standing.

They have authoritative voice on:

Department heads recognize the persona owner as the authoritative voice on these questions for their persona. Steven at Product, Laila at Delivery, the Demand lead, the Sales lead — all treat the persona owner as the person who carries the strategic vision for what serving that persona well looks like.

This is how the persona model works in practice. Without persona ownership, "we serve three customer types" becomes a marketing slogan rather than an operating discipline. With persona ownership, every department is accountable to a persona-specific strategic voice that says this is how we win with this customer. The persona owners coordinate across departments. The department heads execute against persona strategy. The function leads (RevOps, R&D, Corporate) ensure the architecture supports the persona work rather than fighting it.

This is the move out of brand-thinking and into customer-thinking. It is the operating expression of the credentialing-network framing in Part I.

The three personas do not appear as boxes on the org chart. They appear as a virtual layer operating across the three RevOps departments. Each persona has a defined owner — a hat worn by an existing leader — accountable for that persona's revenue, retention, and experience across all three departments.

The departments are the org structure. The personas are the strategic accountability dimension running through them. The shared services layer is the infrastructure that lets a small team operate this matrix without splintering.

This is the architecture that lets WKT operate as a multi-branded ecosystem with traditional reporting lines while still maintaining persona-led strategic discipline.

Account management of existing Corporate Buyers lives inside Delivery. Laila's team is the customer's primary contact — the named relationship, the daily presence, the front door for everything from a support ticket to a re-order. This is a deliberate choice: account management is a relationship discipline, and the team that knows the Training Manager by name is the team best positioned to keep the customer healthy and growing.

The boundary between Delivery and Sales for existing customers is drawn by commercial complexity, not by who answers the phone. The principle is simple: Delivery handles servicing motions where the commercial structure is unchanged; Sales handles motions where pricing, contracting, or scope shifts.

The result: customers get a single front door (Delivery) for the 80% of interactions that are servicing, and Sales is pulled in only when their muscle is actually needed — the commercial conversation. Delivery owns the relationship and the number for retention; Sales owns the close and the number for net-new commercial scope. The persona owner holds the overall growth number for the customer type.

WKT operates multiple brands across our publisher portfolio. The operating model handles brand variation through a brand-tagged creative library, not through brand-specific marketing teams.

The library is a structured, tagged asset system: every piece of copy, every image, every case study, every value prop, every email template, every landing page component is tagged by persona, by brand, by use case, and by stage of funnel. When the marketing team builds a Corporate Buyer campaign for one publisher brand, they pull that brand's tagged Corporate Buyer creative from the library. When they fork it for another brand, they swap to that brand's tagged creative. The campaign architecture stays the same; the brand wrapper changes.

This is what makes the model scalable. We can acquire a new brand tomorrow and integrate it without restructuring marketing — we just tag new assets into the library and run the same workflows. It is also what lets a small marketing team operate multiple brands without splintering. The team builds the muscle once. The library applies it everywhere.

The architecture creates a clear flow of strategic direction down into operations and a clear flow of signal back up. This is what makes the company learn from itself rather than running on disconnected tracks.

Strategic direction flows downward: Visionary intent shapes Strategy & Industry Authority's priorities, Strategy & Industry Authority's intelligence shapes operational priorities, operations execute. Signal flows upward: customer behavior, market shifts, operating realities surface back through the L10 cadence and through Strategy & Industry Authority's continuous market awareness, and inform the next round of strategic direction.

This loop is what makes the company learn. Without it, strategy becomes opinion and operations become reaction. With it, strategy becomes evidence-based and operations become intentional.

Drip is the marketing automation system of record for WKT. The proposal is to centralize all customer communication infrastructure — email lifecycle, post-purchase nurture, expansion triggers, account-based motions — through Drip, with brand-specific sending domains and proper authentication per brand. One platform, one team workflow, multiple brand identities.

The near-term priorities for the automation spine:

Today, the three RevOps departments report up to different places and operate without a unifying frame. The architecture changes that — RevOps becomes one function with three departments that operate as a unified customer-facing engine. The near-term moves that make this real:

R&D is structured as one function — not eLearning and Product as parallel functions, but R&D as one converging capability. The reasoning is the strategic anchor named in Part 1: learning is technology-led, technology relies on learning, and value is created in experience and outcomes. Splitting them organizationally creates handoffs where there should be co-creation.

What this means in practice:

The departments inside R&D — eLearning content (currently open) and Product & Software under Steven — remain distinct enough that each has a clear lead and a clear focus. But they operate as one function with one roadmap, not two functions in coordination.

The operating model assumes AI and agentic workflows are embedded across functions, not concentrated in one place. The premise: a small, focused team plus AI leverage produces the output of a much larger one. This applies across:

The principle is consistent: AI does not replace functions. It extends them. Every function builds AI workflows into its core operating model rather than treating AI as a separate initiative.

Corporate at WKT today is intentionally lightweight — fractional CFO, internal handling of HR, IT, and Legal. The architecture preserves that posture in scope while giving the function a real seat at the Leadership Team table.

The near-term moves are about clarifying ownership rather than expanding the function:

The forward-looking version: as WKT crosses revenue and headcount thresholds that justify it, Corporate splits into Finance and People & Operations, each with its own leader. That is a 12–24 month consideration, not a near-term decision.

This decision architecture is what lets the company run without the Visionary being in every meeting. It is also what lets the Integrator focus on operational integration rather than absorbing strategic and visionary work that should be happening at the layers above and beside that seat.

All three must be present. Two out of three is not enough. A person who Gets and Wants the seat but lacks Capacity is not the right fit. A person with Capacity who does not Want the seat will hold it badly. The room tests each placement against GWC together, and the room agrees together.

Several seats are currently held on a temporary basis. Those bridge arrangements were made because the company needed someone in those seats while the architecture was being designed. They are not permanent placements, and they are not pre-decisions about who fills the seats going forward. The Accountability Chart exercise is the moment those temporary placements get tested against GWC and either confirmed, replaced, or restructured.

The named placements throughout the chart — Emma at R&D, Nicole at Sales, Laila at Delivery, Steven at Product & Software, Ricky at Finance, Mark at Corporate (interim) — are the V/I/CoS layer's recommendations going in. They are not pre-decided. The room tests each one against GWC. People may petition for seats they have not been recommended for. People may decline seats they are currently associated with. GWC works in both directions.

The Accountability Chart exercise has a specific methodology that the room uses to navigate restructuring conversations cleanly. The four principles below are the tools the room operates with. They are designed to depersonalize the process so the team can make structural decisions without those decisions feeling like personal verdicts.

These four tools together let the room have honest conversations about hard topics — eliminating roles, combining functions, redirecting placements — without the conversation becoming personal. The principle that holds it all together is that the room is making decisions about what the company needs, not about who anyone is.

This is the part that is most uncomfortable for everyone, and worth saying out loud. In a traditional management structure, the President or COO has unilateral authority over the org chart and decides who sits where. The operating model we have chosen asks the V/I/CoS layer to share a meaningful piece of that authority at the leadership-team level — because the EOS principle is that the Leadership Team holds the chart together, against GWC, in the room. This is a feature of the operating model we have chosen. It is not a critique of how the chart has been held until now.