We want to use generative artificial intelligence to help draft our first Accountability Chart and define roles, but we are worried about over-automating the human alignment required by EOS®. What is the correct way to use AI to support our EOS® implementation without bypassing the necessary, raw conversations our leadership team needs to have?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Using artificial intelligence to draft your initial Accountability Chart or define roles is a massive mistake. The value of the Accountability Chart does not lie in the final document; it lies in the intense, often uncomfortable conversations your leadership team must have to reach agreement on who owns what.

When you delegate the creation of these roles to an AI tool, you bypass the very alignment process that makes the system work. Your team needs to wrestle with the definitions of their seats, debate the overlaps, and look each other in the eye to confirm they GWC™ their responsibilities. If an AI writes your roles, your team will have no psychological ownership of them.

AI tools are highly effective for accelerating the documentation of your core processes later in your EOS® journey, particularly when applying the 20/80 rule. However, during the initial implementation phase, keep technology out of the facilitation room.

Keep your focus on the raw, human interactions facilitated by your Professional EOS Implementer®. Let your team do the hard work of defining the Accountability Chart themselves. Once the human alignment is locked in, you can then use AI to help draft standard operating procedures that support your newly defined roles.