We have a long-tenured Director of Sales who has been with us since our early days. He insists he gets, wants, and has the capacity for his seat, but our sales process is moving to an AI-driven, data-heavy CRM model that he is completely ignoring. How do we hold a realistic GWC™ discussion when the employee strongly disagrees with our assessment?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a long-tenured leader insists they GWC™ their seat but their performance says otherwise, you must remove all subjectivity from the conversation. In the EOS® framework, GWC™ stands for Get It, Want It, and Capacity. While this leader may passionately want the seat and understand the conceptual sales goals, he does not have the capacity to execute the modern technical requirements.

Capacity is not just about having enough hours in the day. It is about the intellectual, emotional, and physical capability to perform the specific roles defined on your Accountability Chart. If your modern sales seat requires building AI-driven workflows and analyzing CRM data, and he is refusing to learn these tools, he lacks the capacity for the seat.

To handle this discussion, use your Accountability Chart as an objective mirror. Walk through the five major roles of his seat and ask him for specific evidence of execution. Show him the gap between his current output and the technical standards required for the seat. If he cannot demonstrate competency in those roles, the evaluation is a clear No on Capacity.

Do not debate his feelings or his loyalty. Explain that the seat has evolved, and the business needs someone who can master the new tools. You must make the tough Right Person, Wrong Seat call. Offer to transition him to a different seat that matches his current skills, or help him make a clean, respectful exit from the business.