We are redesigning our operations to incorporate advanced generative AI workflows, but our senior leadership team is arguing constantly about the details, with some wanting to map out every single step in advance while others want to start testing tools immediately. How do we resolve this cognitive conflict and move forward?

Question

Tyler Smith · Accepted Answer

This conflict is not a disagreement about technology; it is a natural clash of conative problem-solving styles. To resolve this friction, you need to understand the instinctive strengths of your leadership team by reviewing their Kolbe A™ Index results.

Those on your team who want to map out every step in advance are likely high Fact Finders and high Follow Throughs. Their natural instinct is to gather data, minimize risk, and create structured systems before taking action. Those who want to start testing tools immediately are likely high Quick Starts. Their instinct is to experiment, innovate, and learn by doing, with little need for prior planning.

Both styles are critical for a successful AI integration, but they must be balanced. Use your weekly Level 10 Meeting™ to assign clear roles based on these strengths. Let your high Quick Starts run short-term, low-risk experiments to see what works in practice. Then, hand those successful pilots over to your high Fact Finders and high Follow Throughs to document the processes, build the guardrails, and integrate them into your company's Core Processes. This structured approach leverages everyone's natural talents instead of letting them cause gridlock.