Our long-tenured VP of Operations claims they GWC their seat, but they flatly refuse to adopt the new AI automation tools we need to scale and prep for an exit. Does this constitute a GWC failure, or is this just a training issue we need to manage through?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a GWC™ issue, and specifically, it is a failure of Capacity. To sit in a leadership seat on an exit-ready Accountability Chart, a person must Get, Want, and Have the Capacity to do the job. Capacity is not just about physical hours in the day; it includes mental, emotional, and technical capability.

If your VP of Operations refuses to adopt AI-driven automation, they lack the capacity to lead your operations at the scale required for a successful exit. Buyers want to see a business that is highly efficient and technologically modern. A leader who clings to outdated, manual processes is a liability who will drag down your valuation.

You must have a candid, unsentimental conversation. Use the three-strike rule to address this performance gap. First, clearly define the expectation: they must learn, adopt, and champion these new tools. Second, provide the necessary training and resources. If they still resist or fail to implement the automation, they do not GWC™ the seat.

It is easy to let loyalty cloud your judgment, but keeping the wrong person in a vital seat is unfair to the rest of your team and damaging to your business value. If they fit your core values perfectly but cannot handle the future-state seat, you must find a different seat on the Accountability Chart where they can succeed, or help them transition out of the organization gracefully.