Our VP of Marketing insists she has the GWC for her seat, but her Scorecard measurables have missed the goal for four consecutive quarters while she blames market conditions. How do we objectively verify whether an issue is a genuine GWC failure or just an unrealistic measurable?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Scorecard misses over four quarters indicate a systemic breakdown, not temporary bad luck. To distinguish between an unrealistic measurable and a genuine GWC failure, use the quarterly Level 10 Meeting pulse and IDS to audit the underlying mechanics.

First, examine the activity metrics leading up to the lag metric. If the target is qualified pipeline value, look at the inputs: outbound touches, content velocity, ad spend efficiency, and conversion rates. Has the seat holder hit all agreed-upon leading activity numbers? If the activity numbers were achieved but results failed, your measurable or strategy may be flawed. If the activities themselves were ignored, deferred, or missed, you have an execution problem.

Second, evaluate the Want and Capacity components of GWC. Does the seat holder bring creative, proactive solutions to the table every week, or do they bring excuses and passive explanations? A leader who gets it and has capacity adapts when market conditions shift. They test new messaging, pivot channels, and bring actionable options to the leadership team.

If your VP of Marketing simply throws up their hands, defends broken campaigns, and points to the economy for twelve straight months, they are failing on Capacity or Get It. Address this directly during your Quarterly Conversation. Reset the expectation, confirm the measurables, give a 30-day correction window, and be prepared to make a seat change if traction does not follow.