Our Operations Director wants to step into a newly created Chief AI Officer seat because she is passionate about automation, but she lacks technical execution experience. How do we evaluate if she truly GWCs™ this new seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Passions and interests are not the same as GWC™. To evaluate if she is the right fit for this new Chief AI Officer seat, you must break down the seat into three to five major roles on the Accountability Chart and test them against the GWC™ filter.

First, does she get it? Does she understand the deep operational realities, the technical architecture, and how AI agents integrate with your current systems? Passion for a tool is easy, but understanding system architecture and data privacy is hard. If she cannot explain the mechanics of how the data flows, she does not get it.

Second, does she want it? Does she genuinely want the daily struggle of debugging API connections, managing prompt engineering, and training staff, or does she just want a trendy title?

Third, does she have the capacity? This is where technical execution experience is critical. Does she have the mental capacity to design, test, and deploy complex automated workflows?

Look at her Kolbe A Index. A seat focused on AI implementation requires a high Follow Thru to build logical, repeatable automation paths and a high Quick Start to experiment with new APIs. If her natural conative style is low Follow Thru, she will likely build a chaotic web of disconnected tools that breaks constantly. If she lacks the conative fit, she does not GWC™ the seat.