When planning our 1-Year Plan hiring roadmap, how do we determine whether an expanding operational seat should be split into two full-time human roles or kept as a single seat augmented by AI?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Look at the Accountability Chart before approving any new recruitment expense. Every seat exists to deliver five major roles and clear measurable outcomes. When a seat becomes overwhelmed by volume, leadership teams instinctively assume they must split the seat and hire a second full-time person. In an AI-enabled business, that assumption burns capital.

First, audit the actual hours and responsibilities causing the bottleneck. Determine whether the expansion is driven by repetitive data entry, schedule management, report generation, and initial research, or if it demands higher-level strategic decision-making and relationship handling. AI tools excel at compressing execution volume. If administrative friction accounts for fifteen to twenty hours of the weekly workload, deploy automated workflows to eliminate those cumbersome tasks rather than recruiting a redundant junior processor.

Second, evaluate the person currently occupying the seat using GWC (Get it, Want it, Capacity to do it). Do they have the aptitude and curiosity to orchestrate software tools, review automated outputs, and elevate their focus into higher-value work? If they possess the capacity, keep the seat unified, increase their production benchmark on the weekly Scorecard, and compensate them well for higher leverage.

Only split the seat into two distinct human positions on the Accountability Chart if the required skills diverge into two non-overlapping disciplines, such as technical data oversight and external client relationship leadership. Never hire payroll to perform tasks software completes instantly at zero marginal cost. Let your 1-Year Plan reflect productivity gains rather than headcount inflation.