How do we handle a seat holder who has complete GWC for four of their roles but completely refuses or fails to execute the fifth role?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When an employee has high capacity for four roles in their seat but consistently fails the fifth, leadership teams often ignore the deficiency because the person is otherwise productive. This is a common trap, especially when the failing role is something like LMA (Leading, Managing, and holding people Accountable) or ongoing documentation.

A seat is a package deal. You cannot pick and choose which roles to execute. If someone gets, wants, and has the capacity for four roles, but drops the ball on the fifth, they do not have full GWC for that seat.

Your first step is to enter the issue into your Level 10 Meeting and IDS it honestly. Determine why the role is failing. Is it an issue of true Capacity, meaning they simply lack the hours or the emotional wiring to manage people, or is it an issue of alignment, where they do not Want the role because they prefer solo technical work?

If they do not want the role or lack the wiring to ever succeed in it, you have two options. First, examine whether your Accountability Chart is structurally flawed. If you lumped an administrative or management role into an individual contributor seat, redesign the chart to move that role to another seat where it naturally belongs. Structure comes first.

However, if that fifth role is structurally essential to the seat, such as a director managing their direct reports, the seat holder must improve or be moved. You cannot leave a critical function unexecuted simply because the employee excels at other tasks.