Our long-tenured engineering director gets and wants his seat, but his capacity is capped because he refuses to use our new AI-driven code review tools, causing massive product bottlenecks. How do we make the GWC™ call when a loyal veteran rejects the technology required for our seat's future?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is a classic GWC™ challenge. Your veteran leader gets the seat and wants the seat, but lacks the capacity because they refuse to adapt to new technology. In an exit-ready company, capacity is not just about having enough hours in the day. It is about having the mental, emotional, and physical capacity to perform the role at the level required to scale. If a department head rejects the tools necessary to automate and streamline operations, they do not have the capacity for that seat. You cannot let sentimentality cloud this structural reality. To address this, take the following steps: First, have a candid, one-on-one conversation. Isolate the issue. Is it fear of the technology, or is it a deeper resistance to change? Second, set a clear, time-bound expectation. Make adopting the AI-driven workflow a personal Rock for the quarter. Third, evaluate the results at the end of the quarter. If they fail to adapt, you must make a hard call. You have two choices. You can either find a different seat on the Accountability Chart that they truly GWC™, or you must transition them out of the business. Keeping a leader who blocks operational efficiency sends a message to the rest of the team that your core values and standards are negotiable. It also hurts your exit valuation by proving the business relies on manual, outdated processes.