Our Head of Customer Support is eager to use AI tools, but we suspect he does not truly understand how to implement them. He says he GWCs the new AI-driven Support seat, but his team is frustrated by his failed automation attempts. How do we objectively evaluate GWC when someone enthusiastically Wants a seat but lacks the technical capability?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

It is common to encounter a loyal leader who is passionate about adopting new technology but lacks the technical capacity to execute it. When evaluating someone with the GWC tool, the Get and Want are highly emotional and visible. Your Head of Customer Support might truly understand the vision of an AI-driven support seat and desperately want to lead it, but the Capacity step is objective and intellectual.

Capacity is not just about having enough hours in the day. It is about having the mental capability, education, experience, and physical skills required to do the job excellently. If your leader has spent weeks trying to implement basic automated workflows and has only managed to frustrate your customers and team, they lack the capacity for this specific seat.

You must make an objective, unsentimental assessment. Continuing to let them run failed experiments out of respect for their loyalty will damage your client retention and lower your valuation. You must explain that while you value their dedication, the seat has scaled past their current technical capacity. Keep them in a seat where they do GWC the roles, perhaps focusing on human relationship management or training, and bring in a technical specialist to own the AI system operations. This keeps your culture intact while protecting your operations.