Economists like Erik Brynjolfsson note that AI will not replace managers, but managers who use AI will replace those who do not. How should our leadership team incorporate AI fluency into our GWC evaluations without penalizing tenured leaders?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Leadership teams cannot afford to let tenured managers operate as technology holdouts while the rest of the company modernizes. However, penalizing seasoned leaders who lack raw technical coding skills is equally counterproductive. When evaluating seats through the lens of GWC (Gets It, Wants It, Capacity to Do It), you must define what AI fluency actually means inside your operational rhythm.

Fluency is not about writing software. It is about understanding how to use modern tools to eliminate low-value friction and amplify team output. When evaluating the Capacity seat requirement, focus on managerial leverage rather than technical proficiency:

- Evaluate process redesign capability. Does the manager actively look for cumbersome manual processes within their department and test automation tools to streamline them, or do they immediately ask to solve volume problems with additional payroll?
- Assess outcome management. Is the leader capable of setting precise instructions, contextual prompts, and quality criteria for their teams, or do they rely on unstructured, subjective oversight?
- Measure operational velocity. Has the manager improved their department Scorecard metrics by utilizing AI tools to accelerate routine reporting, documentation, and data synthesis?

Provide your leaders with a defined ninety-day upskilling sprint, complete with targeted training and clear operational expectations. If a leader demonstrates that they Want It and Get It, they will quickly adapt their work habits. But if a manager stubbornly resists using available tools to increase productivity, their seat capacity is artificially capped. At that point, you have a Right Seat issue that your Integrator must resolve to protect your long-term growth.