We are rewriting the job descriptions on our Accountability Chart to require AI competency, but we are struggling to define what GWC looks like for a role that depends on automated tools. How do we evaluate if an employee truly Gets, Wants, and has the Capacity to manage an AI-augmented seat?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When evaluating GWC for an AI-augmented seat, you must look past simple technical coding skills. Getting the seat means the employee understands how AI fits into the larger business workflow, recognizing that the AI is an assistant, not a replacement for critical thinking. Wanting the seat means they possess a natural curiosity and desire to constantly optimize their workflows, rather than fearing that technology will make their role redundant. Capacity is where most leaders make mistakes. In an AI-assisted seat, capacity does not mean knowing how to write complex code. Instead, it means having the cognitive capability to audit AI-generated outputs, identify subtle errors, and refine prompts to get better results. It requires a high level of critical thinking and a willingness to engage in Kolb's continuous learning cycle. The employee must be able to move from a concrete experience with the AI, reflect on its performance, conceptualize better ways to leverage the tool, and actively experiment with new prompt structures. If an employee lacks the instinctive drive to challenge and audit the technology, they do not have the capacity for an AI-augmented seat, regardless of how many technical certifications they hold.