Our long-tenured Vice President of Operations has been with us for fifteen years and has built our entire manual delivery process. As we prepare for a high-multiple exit, we are shifting to an AI-driven automated workflow. She insists she GWCs this new seat, but she is consistently resisting the automated tools and relying on manual workarounds. How do we handle this GWC gap without destroying morale?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

You have a GWC™ issue, specifically on the Get and Want. The hard truth is that the seat has outgrown the person. Building a manual process requires a completely different skill set than managing an automated, algorithmic workflow.

When someone says they get, want, and have the capacity for a seat, but their actions show otherwise, you must look at the data. She might intellectually understand what the seat does, but she does not truly Get the modern, systems-first operational architecture. She might Want the seat because of her tenure, but she does not Want the daily reality of managing an automated pipeline.

Use the GWC™ tool objectively. Sit down with her outside of your Level 10 Meeting™ and walk through the five core roles of the newly designed operations seat. Ask her to describe what success looks like for each role in our new model. If her answers rely on manual intervention or legacy habits, she does not Get it.

You cannot compromise the seat to accommodate her tenure. If you do, you will kill your exit valuation. You must make a Right Person, Right Seat call. This means either transitioning her to a different seat on the Accountability Chart where her deep industry knowledge is an asset, or helping her make a clean, respectful exit from the company.