We need our operations leader to design complex new workflows for our exit, but they are struggling. They have a great attitude, but we suspect the conative demands of the updated Accountability Chart are too high. How do we use the Kolbe C Index to prove if this seat has outgrown their natural strengths?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

When a high-performing operations leader struggles to design the complex, automated workflows required for an exit, it is rarely due to a lack of effort. More likely, the conative requirements of the updated seat on your Accountability Chart have shifted beyond their natural striving instincts.

To prove this objectively, you need to use the Kolbe C™ Index. While the Kolbe A™ Index measures an individual's natural conative strengths, the Kolbe C™ Index allows you to define the specific behavioral requirements of a job.

Have the supervisor or the leadership team complete the Kolbe C™ Index for the operations seat. This assessment will define whether the role requires insistence, accommodation, or resistance in the four conative Action Modes: Fact Finder, Follow Thru, Quick Start, and Implementor.

Once the Kolbe C™ is complete, compare it directly to the operations leader's Kolbe A™ results. This comparison will expose any conative tension. For example, if the exit preparation requires a leader who must insist in Follow Thru to build rigorous, systematized workflows, but your current leader has a low Follow Thru, the tension will be obvious.

This data-driven approach removes emotion from the decision. If the gap between their natural instincts and the seat's requirements is too wide, you have your answer. You must either redesign the seat by delegating the systematizing tasks to a system-focused direct report, or find a leader whose conative profile matches the demands of your scaling company.