When automation eliminates eighty percent of a team member's daily repetitive tasks, how do we evaluate whether they still have the GWC to step up into an analytical or supervisory role?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When you automate routine back-office execution, the day-to-day work inside a department changes dramatically. A coordinator who spent thirty hours a week entering data and compiling spreadsheets might now only spend three hours reviewing automated outputs. The rest of their week must now be dedicated to proactive vendor negotiation, client communication, or exception analysis.

This transition often exposes whether the employee still fits the seat. Using the EOS® tool GWC™, you must evaluate if the person has the Get It, Want It, and Capacity for this newly upgraded operational role.

- Get it: Do they understand the broader business context, systemic handoffs, and downstream impacts of the automated system, or did they only understand the mechanical keystrokes of the old task?
- Want it: Do they genuinely desire an analytical, problem-solving role where they are held accountable for exceptions and customer interactions, or do they secretly prefer repetitive administrative work with zero decision-making pressure?
- Capacity to do it: Do they have the intellectual and emotional capacity to interpret data anomalies, manage software agent handoffs, and communicate with stakeholders under pressure?

If an employee lacks the GWC™ for an elevated analytical role, you must address the mismatch quickly during your quarterly check-in. Never let an automated seat drift without clear expectations on the Accountability Chart.