Our team is using AI to speed up their work, but we suspect it is hiding performance issues in certain seats. How do we evaluate if a team member still GWCs their seat when AI is doing eighty percent of the actual work?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When AI automates the vast majority of a seat's daily tasks, the standard for evaluating GWC™ (Get It, Want It, Capacity to Do It) must shift from raw execution speed to critical judgment and quality control.

A team member might be delivering outputs faster than ever, but if they are simply copy-pasting AI results without auditing them, they do not possess the capacity to do the job. The capacity requirement has evolved. It now demands the ability to inspect, refine, and catch the hallucinations or errors that AI inevitably produces.

To test this, look at their spontaneous, top-of-mind reactions during a crunch. When an unexpected issue arises, do they blindly search for an AI tool to solve it, or do they understand the underlying operational principles enough to troubleshoot the problem manually?

You must update the roles and responsibilities on your Accountability Chart® for these automated seats. The focus must be on oversight, strategic decision-making, and final output quality, rather than manual processing.

If a team member cannot explain how their automated workflow operates or why the AI generated a specific output, they do not GWC their seat. AI is a leverage tool for capable minds, not a shield for low performers.