When we automate a major portion of a team member's seat with AI, they often struggle to shift their remaining time to higher-value work because they lack the conative drive for strategic planning. How do we use the Kolbe A Index to determine if a person actually GWC's their newly designed, AI-augmented role?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When AI automates the routine tasks of a role, the seat changes fundamentally. A role that previously required high Follow Thru for data entry and administrative tasks may suddenly require high Fact Finder or Quick Start capabilities for data analysis and strategic problem-solving.

Before you assume your employee GWC's (Gets, Wants, and has the Capacity to do) this newly designed role, you must look at their natural conative strengths using the Kolbe A Index.

If the original seat relied heavily on a strong Follow Thru instinct to keep a manual process organized, and the new seat requires them to constantly innovate, interpret complex data patterns, or engage in creative strategic planning, they may experience severe conative stress. They might want the new job and intellectually understand it, but lack the natural capacity to sustain that type of mental energy daily.

Use the Kolbe A Index to map their natural problem-solving style against the daily reality of the updated seat. If there is a major mismatch, you have two choices: either redesign the seat to align with their natural conative strengths, or help them transition to a different seat on the Accountability Chart where their innate talents are a natural fit. Do not try to force a high Follow Thru performer into a strategic Quick Start role just because AI freed up their administrative capacity.