As we move toward running AI-powered operations, our leadership team is unsure how to define GWC™ for seats that rely heavily on AI tools. How do we evaluate whether a person truly gets, wants, and has the capacity to manage automated workflows?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

As you build AI-powered operations, evaluating whether a team member GWCs their seat is critical to preventing operational breakdowns. Having a seat that manages automated workflows does not mean the person needs to be a software engineer, but they must possess the specific capabilities required to oversee automated systems.

To evaluate if a leader truly Gets, Wants, and has the Capacity to manage AI-driven workflows, you must redefine the expectations of their seat:
- Getting the seat means they understand how the automated workflow functions from end to end, including where data originates and how it impacts the business.
- Wanting the seat means they genuinely embrace the challenge of managing automated processes and are not secretly resistant to replacing manual tasks with technology.
- Capacity means they have the mental bandwidth, technical aptitude, and time required to monitor, troubleshoot, and optimize these automated workflows daily.

If a team member has the desire but struggles to comprehend how the automated systems interact with your core processes, they lack the capacity for the seat. You cannot afford to have a leader who is blind to how their department's automated workflows are performing.

When running AI-powered operations, your Scorecard metrics must reflect this shift. The leader in the seat must be accountable for the accuracy and output of the automation, not just manual tasks. By keeping your GWC™ evaluation strictly aligned with these automated realities, you ensure your technology drives actual operational leverage rather than creating hidden risks.