Our Head of Customer Delivery is failing to hit his departmental targets, but during our GWC review, he insists he fully gets, wants, and has the capacity for the seat. He blames his poor performance on external factors like software glitches and a lack of staff. How do we handle a situation where a leader claims they pass GWC, but their actual results say otherwise?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

GWC is an objective tool, not a subjective opinion. While 'Get it' and 'Want it' are internal states, 'Capacity' is proven by results. If a leader is consistently failing to hit their targets and dropping critical balls, they do not have the capacity for the seat in its current form, regardless of what they claim.

When a leader blames external factors, software bugs, or staffing shortages, they are failing to take true ownership of their seat. The primary role of any leader on your Accountability Chart is to solve those exact problems, not to use them as excuses.

To resolve this, you must look at the data. Use your weekly Scorecard and quarterly Rocks as the source of truth. If their measurables are consistently red and their Rocks are incomplete, they are failing to deliver.

Have a direct, unsentimental conversation during their next review. Lay out the data and explain that capacity includes the ability to overcome obstacles, manage resources, and deliver results under pressure.

Give them a clear, time-bound window, usually thirty days, to turn the performance around. Use a performance improvement plan tied to specific, measurable outcomes. If they cannot hit those targets, you have your answer. They do not GWC the seat at this scale, and you must move them out of the seat to protect your operational efficiency and valuation.