We have a director who checked yes to Want It on her GWC assessment, but her actual day-to-day behavior shows she is passive-aggressively resisting our new AI tools and operational metrics. How do we handle a situation where someone says they want their seat, but their actions prove otherwise?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a director says yes to Want It during a GWC™ assessment but acts passive-aggressively in daily operations, you are dealing with false compliance. This is a common hurdle when implementing new technology or structured accountability.

Want It cannot just be a verbal agreement to keep a paycheck. It means a genuine, intrinsic motivation to perform the five roles of the seat. If a leader actively avoids utilizing new AI systems, ignores their scorecard, or grumbles to their team about operational changes, they do not want the seat.

To address this, you must schedule a direct, one-on-one meeting. Do not let them off the hook with vague talk. Bring concrete evidence of their behavior to the table. Reference specific instances where they bypassed new protocols or failed to drive adoption of core metrics.

Ask them point-blank: We agreed during our GWC™ alignment that you wanted this seat, but your actions show you are fighting the changes. What is the real block?

Give them a clear, time-bound window to align their actions with their words. If they are simply afraid of the new technology, offer training support. But if their resistance is rooted in a desire to keep things the way they used to be, you must accept that they no longer fit the evolved seat. You must find a replacement who genuinely wants the responsibility.