We have an employee who is brilliant in their seat but consistently fails to hit their weekly scorecard metric, claiming the target is unrealistic. How do we determine if the issue is an unrealistic target or if the person lacks the GWC to own that specific number?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a metric consistently runs red, you cannot afford to guess whether the number is broken or the person is. You must systematically evaluate both using the EOS® framework.

First, look at the historical data. Have other team members hit this target under similar conditions, or has the target been hit during peak performance periods? If the answer is yes, the target is likely realistic. If the number was created from thin air without historical data or capacity analysis, it may indeed be a bad metric. Run a quick sanity check by calculating the actual capacity required to hit the number.

If the target is realistic, you must objectively evaluate the seat holder using the GWC™ tool. Do they truly get, want, and have the capacity to own this metric? Get it means they understand the natural systems, processes, and steps required to move the number. Want it means they are intrinsically motivated to achieve it, not just going through the motions. Capacity includes the physical, mental, and conative energy required.

Often, an employee claims a target is unrealistic because they lack the conative drive or system to manage the workflow. If they have the GWC™ but still miss the number, use your weekly Level 10 Meeting™ to IDS® the bottleneck. If they lack GWC™ for that metric, you must move the metric to a seat that does, or replace the person in that seat.