We are transitioning our technology department from custom software development to low code tools and AI-driven automation. Our current IT Director has a high Fact Finder score on his Kolbe profile and wants to continue writing custom code, but our new operational model needs a systems builder. Do we rewrite his seat roles, or do we need a different person?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

You need a different person in that seat. You should never rewrite a seat on your Accountability Chart to accommodate the unique preferences or conative profiles of an existing employee. The Accountability Chart must be designed for what the business needs to scale, not for the people you currently have.

Your IT Director has an innate conative strength as a deep Fact Finder, which means he is wired to investigate, research, and write complex custom code. This was highly valuable when you were building bespoke software. However, your new model requires a rapid systems builder who can quickly string together low code integrations and AI pipelines.

This requires a different conative profile, one that thrives on speed and systems building rather than deep research. If your current IT Director does not GWC™ the new seat, keeping him in it will cause massive bottlenecks.

The right move is to design the new technology seat with the roles the business actually needs, such as systems integration, process automation, and pipeline management. If your IT Director cannot GWC™ this new seat, you must find a different seat for him where his deep coding skills are still valuable, or help him transition out of the business. You must fill the technology seat with someone who fits the new profile.