Our long-tenured VP of Marketing gets and wants her seat, but with our shift to AI-driven predictive analytics and programmatic ad buying, she completely lacks the data literacy to manage these workflows. Does she fail the Capacity portion of GWC, or are we obligated to give her time to learn these new technical skills?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a difficult but necessary "right seat" call. In the EOS system, GWC stands for Get It, Want It, and have the Capacity to do it. While your VP of Marketing clearly "gets" the big picture and genuinely "wants" the seat, the sudden introduction of AI-driven tools has fundamentally changed the skill set required for the role. Capacity encompasses physical, mental, emotional, and technical capability.

You cannot compromise on the Capacity requirement just because of long tenure. If she does not have the technical data literacy to manage the updated seat, she is in the wrong seat. This is similar to evaluating other leadership roles where new skills are required, such as assessing if an internal candidate is ready for the [Integrator seat](/qa/promoting-internal-operations-manager-integrator) or if a leader cannot scale with the business, as discussed in [leader cannot scale, transition](/qa/leader-cannot-scale-transition).

Addressing the Capacity Gap

To handle this objectively, follow this process:

• Define New Competencies: Clearly define the technical measurables and modern competencies required for the seat on the [Accountability Chart](/qa/how-can-ai-optimize-the-accountability-chart-for-eos-organizations-undergoing-exit-planning). This might include proficiency with [AI-driven predictive analytics](/qa/ai-assisted-sales-follow-up-process) platforms, data interpretation, and understanding programmatic ad buying algorithms.
• Assess Current Capabilities: Honestly assess her current capabilities against these new standards.
• Determine Learning Potential: Determine if she has the intellectual capacity and speed to close this skills gap within a defined timeframe, such as 30 to 60 days. This involves evaluating her aptitude for learning complex new technologies. This is a critical step, much like evaluating a [VP of Finance's capacity for complex financial modeling](/qa/gwc-vp-finance-exit-capacity-issue) for an exit.
• GWC Filter: If she cannot acquire the necessary skills within this period, she does not GWC the seat.

Next Steps

You must then make the hard decision to move her out of this seat. Because she is a culture fit and "gets" and "wants" to be part of the organization, you can look for another open seat on the chart that aligns with her actual capabilities.

However, you must not dilute the requirements of the marketing seat. The marketing seat's responsibilities have evolved, requiring specialized skills, and compromising on those requirements would hinder the company's ability to leverage new technologies effectively. This is a common challenge when integrating new technologies, as discussed in the context of [AI operations seats](/qa/ai-operations-seat-accountability-chart).

Related questions

• [How can AI optimize the Accountability Chart for EOS organizations undergoing exit planning?](/qa/how-can-ai-optimize-the-accountability-chart-for-eos-organizations-undergoing-exit-planning)
• [Should we create a dedicated AI Operations seat on our Accountability Chart, or integrate AI into existing seats?](/qa/ai-operations-seat-accountability-chart)
• [Our long-tenured VP of Finance is a perfect core values fit and gets and wants their seat, but they lack the capacity to build the complex forward-looking financial forecasting models that prospective buyers are demanding for our exit. How do we handle this GWC issue without firing a loyal leader?](/qa/gwc-vp-finance-exit-capacity-issue)
• [How do we design a specialist seat on our Accountability Chart for a legacy leader who has hit their management ceiling, so we retain their expertise without stalling our growth?](/qa/restructuring-seat-for-legacy-leader-hitting-ceiling)