If we realize three months into our engagement that a key executive lacks the GWC to sit in their seat on the Accountability Chart, how do you help us manage that personnel change without derailing our quarterly Rocks?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This is one of the most common inflection points in early EOS implementation. Once roles are defined on the Accountability Chart, an executive who has been coasting on tenure or charisma is suddenly exposed as lacking the capacity or desire to deliver the seat.

We do not ignore the issue until the next quarterly session. You address it immediately in your Level 10 Meeting. First, you run the executive through the People Analyzer to determine whether this is a core values issue or a GWC issue. If they understand the seat (Gets It) and want the seat (Wants It), but simply lack resources or technical skill (Capacity), you provide a clear thirty-day plan to close the gap.

If they do not Get It or do not Want It, you must make a seat change. Trying to train an executive who fundamentally lacks the mental wiring or desire for the role wastes everyone's time.

My role is to help the Visionary and Integrator hold the standard. In our check-in calls, we pressure-test your transition plan to protect your quarterly Rocks. We often reassign existing Rocks or split the seat temporarily. What we never do is rewrite the Accountability Chart around the limitations of that individual. You design the right seats for the business first, then seat people who have GWC. Compromising on that rule breaks the system.