As we automate more of our data entry and routine reporting with AI, some of our long-term coordinators are struggling to adapt to their updated roles on the Accountability Chart. How do we evaluate whether these employees still GWC their seats when the daily work changes from execution to oversight?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When you introduce AI to automate routine operational tasks, the seats on your Accountability Chart will naturally evolve. A seat that used to require fast data entry may now require deep analytical oversight and quality control. This shift can be incredibly jarring for long-term employees.

To handle this transition without destroying your culture, you must run these employees through the GWC tool:
- Get It: Do they truly understand the new, AI-powered responsibilities of their seat? Do they understand how the software works, how to spot errors, and why their role has shifted from creator to editor?
- Want It: Do they genuinely want this new version of the job? Some employees love the routine of manual tasks and do not want the high-level responsibility of auditing AI outputs.
- Capacity to Do It: Do they have the mental capacity, technical skills, and time management to run this updated seat successfully?

If an employee fails any part of GWC for their updated seat, you cannot ignore it. Doing so violates your Core Value of Do the Right Thing.

First, offer them targeted support and training to help them adapt to the AI tools. If they still cannot master the new workflow, or if they simply do not want the new responsibilities, you must make a tough decision. You must either find a different seat on the Accountability Chart where they can excel or help them transition out of the company. Protecting your operational efficiency requires keeping the right people in the right seats.