We have three open seats on our Accountability Chart that we planned to hire for this quarter, but we suspect AI workflows could absorb this work. How do we objectively evaluate whether to hire humans or build AI systems to handle this capacity?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

Before you post another job description, you must run these open roles through a strict operational filter. Too many business owners default to hiring more people because it is what they have always done, which unnecessarily bloats their overhead and dilutes their margins.

Start by listing the exact responsibilities of the open seats. Identify which tasks are highly repetitive, rules-based, or involve data synthesis. These are cumbersome processes that keep employees bogged down in low-value work. If eighty percent of the role consists of these tasks, do not hire a human. Instead, invest that budget into building automated AI workflows to absorb the capacity.

Next, evaluate the remaining twenty percent of the role using the GWC™ framework. Does this portion of the job require empathy, complex negotiation, or deep strategic relationship management? If it does, you still do not need to hire three full-time people. You can often distribute those high-value, human-centric tasks to existing team members who have been freed up by AI automation in their own roles.

If you find that a human is still absolutely necessary, redefine the seat on your Accountability Chart. Do not hire a junior execution specialist. Hire an editor or an operator who can use AI to do the work of three traditional employees. This keeps your headcount lean, makes your business more scalable, and dramatically increases your valuation when you prepare for a Step by Step Exit.